David Feige’s Indefensible: One Lawyer’s Journey nto the Inferno of American Justice invites people from all walks of life to a second hand experience of the criminal justice system hard at work. What is most interesting about Feige’s work is its distinct presentation of the life of a public defender in the South Bronx. Instead of simply detailing out his experiences as a public defender, Feige takes it a step further and includes the experiences of his clients. Without the personal relationships that he carefully constructs with each of his defendants, Feige would not be able to argue that the criminal justice system is flimsy at best, decisions always riding on either the judge’s personal attitudes or the clients propensity towards plea bargaining. …show more content…
But somehow, when I present this same basic belief in the context of a secular humanist thrust into the brutal world of criminal justice, it loses its coherence. (Feige 238) Feige cites the criminal justice environment as “brutal,” which has been demonstrated time and time again in the book. He sums up his argument by reminding his audience that there exists no relative glamour in being a public defender: “We public defenders are a strange breed: passionate people spending ourselves in a Sisyphean struggle for justice in a system rigged to crush us” (Feige 268). Exceptionally thankful, then, should all people be for public defenders who spend day in and day out consistently doomed to fail. David Feige is no stranger to the system. His book is merely a condensed version of the reality behind both life in the Bronx and life in the criminal justice system. It becomes apparent very early on that one is doomed, even when given a decent judge. Feige basically condemns the system for virtual inability to win. If you do not have enough money for bail, then your only hope is plea-bargaining, which, if you truly are innocent, usually forces you into a state of perpetual guilt. The system, then, according to Feige is extremely flawed, typically costing the defendant and the defender his
EqualJusticeUnderLaw The famous court case: Gideon v. Wainwright “If an obscure Florida convict named Clarence Earl Gideon had not sat down in his prison cell… to write a letter to the Supreme Court… the vast machinery of American law would have gone on functioning undisturbed. But Gideon did write that letter, the court did look into his case… and the whole course of American legal history has been changed.” Robert F. Kennedy (Gideon v. Wainwright). When this broke, trouble prone man was sentenced 5 years in prison for stolen change and drinks, he had no lawyer.
Since 1989, over 1500 people have been exonerated for crimes they served time for but did not commit.(NRA) These are only the cases we know about. In our country’s justice system, many wrongfully convicted people are never given a chance to be exonerated and remain in prison for their entire sentencing. Errol Morris, an American film director attempted to shine a light on the dark side of the criminal justice system. In his 1988 documentary, “A Thin Blue Line,” Morris conveys the need for our justice system to be reformed as he trails the court case of Ranadall Adams, a man wrongfully convicted of a murder; following the case through the prosecution painting an unfair view of Adams, flimsy witness testimonys, and prosecutors who’s motives are
When on the topic of murder trials, one cannot help but imagine the poor moral values of the attorney defending the suspected evil doer, but we hardly ever wonder rather or not the attorneys are mentally effected themselves. More often than not, most attorneys can find themselves alone with the dark secrets of their wicked clients. This is due to a client’s right in the justice system known as the attorney-client privilege. The attorney-client privilege is the client’s right to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications between the client and the attorney. One well known example of just how far this “privilege” can go is the murder case of Robert Garrow.
Innocent Until Proven “Guilty” The United States justice system promises things like the right to a fair trial and a public defender if one is not able to afford a lawyer of their own. However, one thing that the public is not promised is protection from themselves. Scott O. Lilienfeld's 50 Great Myths Of Popular Psychology states that a common misconception is that "virtually all people who confess to a crime are guilty of it." Through my reading and extended research, I have discovered a vast amount of information pertaining to false confessions.
From the shooting demise of unarmed young person Michael Brown, to the vigorously mobilized police reaction, to the challenges in the wake of Brown 's passing, to the disappointment of the fabulous jury to prosecute Officer Darren Wilson for his part in the shooting, the occasions in Ferguson, Missouri, have turned up the warmth on a long stewing open deliberation over the tenacious imbalances in our criminal equity framework. Other late occasions have made the critical need to act significantly all the more clear: In Staten Island, New York, an excellent jury chose not to arraign New York Police Officer Daniel Pantaleo for creating the demise of another unarmed dark man, Eric Garner, despite the fact that the officer 's activities were
“In courtrooms around the country, more than nine out of every ten defendants surrendered any chance of acquittal, abandoned the constitutional right to a jury trial, and asked courts to enter judgments against them” (Gilchrist, 2016, p. 611). Plea bargaining is a complicated part of the criminal justice system. Negotiations happen before or during a trial and often the exact details of a plea bargain are unknown to anyone beyond those who are directly affected. This system can work to the advantage of criminal defendants and their attorneys, but also can lead to abuses of the system on the part of the defense, each of which I will address in turn. First, from a legal standpoint, the ubiquity of plea bargaining has led to its recognition
In the article “From Prison to Ph.D.: The Redemption and Rejection of Michelle Jones”, by Eli Hager, she touches upon the concept of second chances especially for those who have previously been incarcerated. Hager appeared to be a strong supporter of Michelle Jones’ determination and perseverance. Despite the fact that Michelle Jones murdered her 4 year old child, Hager still admired Michelle Jones for making it through prison and wanting to exceed herself. Hager believed that after 20 years in prison, a woman of her caliber should not be judged by her previous and old misdeeds, but by the person she has grown and matured to be. Recently there have been several announcements of the banning of books in prisons.
Roberto Finzi said that for years, as a federal prosecutor, he wore the same lucky tie whenever he gave an opening argument, a practice he continued after becoming a defense lawyer. The tie became so frayed that he finally replaced it. “Trial lawyers believe in jinxes,” Mr. Finzi acknowledged from White Plains, where he is defending a man in a murder trial. Along with using his keen judgment and legal skills, Mr. Finzi made clear that he was doing whatever else was necessary. “I’ve been up here 10 days,” he said earlier this month, “and I’ve had a tuna fish sandwich for lunch every single day.”
Just Mercy is an astonishing book in which Bryan Stevenson describes many court cases of mental illnesses and racial inequalities. Stevenson is a young defended attorney who shared his experiences about his client’s background and what is going on in the justice system. While meeting up with his client, he noticed many connection and similarities through most of his cases. He discovered that his clients had all gone through many hardships while they were in prison. While these clients were at risk from execution, they revealed that they were falsely accused of the crime they did not even commit.
Why would anyone consider practicing law on behalf of an indigent criminal? The day-to-day work of a public defender’s office is highly stressful because of heavy caseloads, uncooperative clients, and an unsupportive criminal justice system. Furthermore, while there is enthusiastic support for providing greater resources to the state to carry out its responsibilities in the criminal justice system, there is very little support for increasing the resources available to public defenders. Because of this fluid funding stream, Chris St. Julien’s role in the 15th Judicial District Public Defender’s Office of ensuring that the office is able to fulfill its mandated role of defending indigent citizens accused of a crime is a constant struggle. The
Guilty Until Proven Innocent In recent discussions of the criminal justice system, a controversial issue has been discussed on whether it is morally correct to keep incarcerated people who are not guilty of a crime, but evidence proves otherwise. Many cases have occurred where people are incarcerated for a crime in which they never committed, due to misleading evidence and malinformation. Even though the innocent people make attempts to prove their innocence, they are often not able to due to incentivized informants, inadequate defense, misapplication of forensic science, government misconduct, false confessions, and misidentified eyewitness. Wrongful convictions are becoming excessively common and has become a big trend within the justice
Herbert Packer believed in a two-model form within the criminal justice system: crime control and due process. With the 1996 film, A Time to Kill, most of society watched this eye-opening and astonishing film and saw nothing but the conflict between races. As individuals studying for the future of criminal justice, it is imperative that we are able to analyze cases in movies and everyday life creating a second nature mindset of the rights and wrongs within cases. Packer explains and introduces to society in his article, Two Models of the Criminal Process, of the idea that crime control and due process are the key elements within the criminal justice system. Furthermore, the film A Time to Kill presents due process but little to no crime control through the court trial
Public Defenders are court appointed trial attorneys who usually represent the poor and underprivileged. Public Defenders face an ethical dilemma due to the fact that they are being overworked with massive caseloads. A Trial Attorney has a responsibility to their client to give them the best quality of representation that they can offer. If a Public Defender is forced by the state department to take on a massive caseload then they will most likely be able to offer the adequate level of quality their client deserves (Baxter, 2012). The use of technology could help to solve this problem with the integration of technology in the courtroom.
The first speech that I listened to was from a young woman who was seemingly composed and put together. However, as her speech continues she exposes herself to the audience as an addict and a convicted felon. This came as quite a surprise because she looked so ordinary and tame. As she continued on with her speech, she began to speak about the prison society which she claimed had given her her life back. Specifically, she mentioned her mentor who had given her a support network as well as employment.
Due to the increasing number of poor individuals in society, there is a high demand for court-appointed counsel. This high demand demands time from the lawyers and results in the lawyer not properly performing their job of providing justice for their client. For example, if a defense attorney has many court-appointed defendants, they are more likely to convince their clients to take plea deals in order to prevent a lengthy trial and because it is more convenient for the lawyer instead of fighting for their client and obtaining justice (if the defendant is wrongly accused). The Rules of Professional Conduct provides solutions for the many conflicts lawyers face. In this document, it states that "such issues must be resolved through the exercise of sensitive professional and moral judgment guided by the basic principles