The right to an attorney and where it specifically applies

at
Categories
Tags

 

If you are accused of a crime in Texas, you do not always get an attorney or the attorney you think you would or should get. For example, in municipal court trials, no attorney is provided because there is no loss of liberty. Municipal courts are fine only courts. Thus, you can only have an attorney in a municipal class C misdemeanor criminal proceeding if you can afford to hire one. The 6th amendment to the U.S. Constitution does give. https://www.justia.com/criminal/procedure/miranda-rights/right-to-attorney/ In these cases, the court is required to provide you with an attorney. Did you know though that if you cannot afford an attorney, there is no uniform public defender system in Texas for indigent defendants. For example, you will still get an attorney in a capital murder case, but it will be a court appointed lawyer and that person is not required to have experience with capital murder defenses or appeals. In Texas, when an attorney must be appointed, each county decides how to appoint and pay for the attorney provided to indigent defendants. Some counties have what many will know as a public defender program and some have an appointment wheel. Couple all this with funding issues and low pay to those attorneys appointed, and you have many potential issues of concern about the system as a whole. Lets see what you think!
The Questions:
1. Should all defendants have a right to an attorney in all criminal proceedings? Include municipal courts in your discussion. For example, do you think a defendant in a class C criminal jury or bench trial should be appointed an attorney if they cannot afford one? If you think the system is fine as is, explain why.
2. Should defendants have a say in who is chosen as their attorney and why? If not, should there be certain standards for who is appointed to represent a defendant? Explain you answer.
3. Take it one step further. A few states are pushing for the appointment of attorneys for indigent person(s) in civil cases where the case involves “basic human needs”. Should Texas pass a law that in civil cases that involve “basic human needs”, an attorney should be appointed for indigent person(s)? If so, this would have to go through the legislative process. Do you think it would pass the legislature in Texas? Would it get public support?

https://www.justia.com/criminal/procedure/miranda-rights/right-to-attorney/
https://www.justia.com/criminal/procedure/miranda-rights/right-to-attorney/
https://sixthamendment.org/the-right-to-counsel/effective-assistance-at-critical-stages/
http://tidc.texas.gov/
https://www.bexar.org/DocumentCenter/View/28086/Bexar-County-Indigent-Defense-System-Evaluation-2020-PDF

 

Sample Solution

At last, jus post bellum proposes that the moves we ought to make after a conflict (Frowe (2010), Page 208). Vittola, right off the bat, contends after a conflict, it is the obligation of the pioneer to judge how to manage the foe (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332).. Once more, proportionality is underscored. For instance, the Versailles deal forced after WWI is tentatively excessively cruel, as it was not all Germany’s problem for the conflict. This is upheld by Frowe, who communicates two perspectives in jus post bellum: Moderation and Maximalism, which are very contrasting perspectives. Minimalists recommend a more merciful methodology while maximalist, supporting the above model, gives a crueler methodology, rebuffing the foe both monetarily and strategically (Frowe (2010), Page 208). At the last occurrence, notwithstanding, the point of war is to lay out harmony security, so whatever should be done can be ethically legitimate, assuming it keeps the guidelines of jus promotion bellum. All in all, simply war hypothesis is entirely contestable and can contend in various ways. Be that as it may, the foundation of a fair harmony is essential, making all war type circumstance to have various approaches to drawing nearer (Frowe (2010), Page 227). By the by, the simply war hypothesis contains jus promotion bellum, jus in bello and jus post bellum, and it very well may be either ethically dubious or legitimate contingent upon the proportionality of the situation. Subsequently, there can’t be one conclusive hypothesis of the simply war yet just a hypothetical manual for show how wars ought to be battled, showing normativity in its record, which responds to the inquiry to what a conflict hypothesis is.

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.
Hi, how can I help?