Gideon V. Wainwright's Violation Of Capital Punishment

After spending countless hours discussing the criminal court system in class and familiarizing myself with the content of Justice Hands’ quote, I have come to a conclusion that ties together a collection of opinions. The death penalty is an arbitrary and ineffective method of punishment that should only be used under one circumstance; if the defendant has been unequivocally found guilty of the murder he committed and would rather succumb to the death penalty than spend the rest of his life in prison without parole. There have been numerous cases throughout the years that have taken place where a defendant was denied his fifth and sixth amendment right to a lawyer and fair trial, and was left with no choice but to hold himself to deliver his own testimony. These circumstances can dramatically influence the outcome of a trial since it creates an unequal chance for the accused. For example, in both Gideon v. Wainwright and Argersinger v. Hamlin, both defendants were denied their right to a counsel. If they had not filed an appeal against their deprivation of a lawyer, this aspect would have evidently convicted them to a greater and unfair sentence. In some instances, this violation of one's constitutional rights has invoked an unbalanced

No man is born evil, and instead are often influenced by others to commit what they do. Therefore, I state that no individual should receive the death penalty and instead, be sentenced to life in prison. If and only if the defendant has been found indisputably guilty, should he be granted the option to place the death penalty upon himself. If a criminal on death row would rather die than spend the rest of their life in prison, I believe that then and only then, must the death sentence be carried