  Two decisions clarifying the rights of the accused. (15 min) |
|
| Teacher's Guide•Gideon vs. Wainwright and Miranda vs. Arizona In all police arrests, the accused has the right to remain silent and to be provided with an attorney before and during questioning. He or she must also be informed of these rights, in order to exercise the “privilege against self-incrimination.” The provision of these rights is a result of fairly recent Supreme Court decisions based on the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution. Although the purpose of these rulings is to aid suspects who may be poor, inexperienced or ignorant of the law, some people argue that these rulings provide a kind of protection for the professional criminal as well. In examining these two key Supreme Court decisions, this program explores an issue that remains a subject of controversy today: balancing the fight of the accused with those of society. Questions for Discussion, Review and Research 1. Why is Clarence Earl Gideon’s self-prepared petition in forma pauperis such a good example of democracy in action? 2. Before appealing to the United States Supreme Court, Gideon had to apply for a writ of habeas corpus in Florida. Why? 3. At the time of the Gideon case, the federal courts, and all but thirteen states, provided counsel to poor defendants. To what extent do you think this affected the public reception of the Supreme Court’s decision? 4. Since the Gideon decision, the Supreme Court has also ruled that a poor defendant may have a psychiatrist appointed to help him in his defense, if he so requests. Do you consider this a proper extension of the principle in Gideon? 5. What are our basic fair trial rights according to the Constitution and its amendments? 6. In light of the Gideon and Miranda decisions, has the question of whether the Bill of Rights applies to state laws and procedures been settled? 7. Would you be satisfied if three police officers involved in a case swore that the defendant’s confession was voluntary? 8. Some people, including some justices of the Supreme Court, believe that the Miranda decision should be reversed. Do you agree? |
|