Amendment VI

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." 

Plain English

Amendment VI grants several rights to the accused in criminal prosecutions: the right to a speedy public trial with an impartial jury in the location where the criminal act was committed, the right for the accused to be informed of his or her accusation, the right to question witnesses, the right to mandate the summon of any witnesses who can contribute to the case, and the right for an attorney (if the accused is unable to hire his or her own attorney, he or she will be assigned one by court). The Supreme Court has extended the protection of this amendment to the states via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Background

Ratified in 1791. Before the Due Process/ Equal Protection Clauses of the 14^th amendment, this amendment originally only applied to criminal actions brought by the federal government.

The Founding Fathers designed this amendment to prevent the defendant’s life from being disrupted for too long and to reduce the chance that witnesses and evidence will disappear. This originates back to the ideals of 12^th century England, where The Assize of Clarendon (act written by Henry II, revolutionized English Law) declared that justice must be provided to the accused “speedily enough”. This prevents the accused from staying in jail for an indefinite period of time before receiving a trial, as well as the lessening of his ability to prepare a defense.

The right to public trial originated in 17^th century England, when defendant John Lilburn argued that the British Common Law entitled him a public trial where spectators are allowed, ultimately triumphing over the English Court of Oyer and Terminer. The Founding Fathers believed that this will prevent corrupt judges and encourage anyone with information to come forth and testify.

The right to trial by impartial jury originated in the Magna Charta in 1215. The Founding Fathers found that England’s way of letting the Crown interfere with deliberation that may harm the royal government in any way is unjust and hoped to prevent that with this right.

All in all, the Sixth Amendment was the product of the Founding Father’s efforts to include these fundamental rights of fairness, in the face of law, into our Constitution.

Personal Thoughts/ Effect on the US

We think this amendment is crucial in creating fair and just criminal prosecutions. Amendment VI's purpose is to insure a reminder that the accused is only the accused and not the guilty. This amendment stresses the principle that one is innocent until proven guilty. In imposing the enactment of protecting the rights of the accused, we strongly agree with the sixth amendment.

The pros of this amendment is quite obvious: to eliminate prejudice that leads to court officials slipping through loopholes simply to force upon the guilty name to an accused. It is narrowing down on the issue that people can become very prejudiced with information from the media. An unbiased juror is very important because they are the people who decide on the outcome of the case and we wouldn't want someone who is biased to decide one's fate. We think that the procedure of jury selection is well organized. [Mastermansocsci35:] I remember my teacher in 7th grade told my class about one of her jury duty experiences and how she was excused from it. When they showed the group of selected possible jurors the people associated with the trial, she found out she knew someone in the group. It wasn't even someone she knew well or was close with, but because of this, she was excused from jury duty. I like how this process really shows that they are trying to get rid of prejudice to create a fair trial. 

However, there is a slight flaw in this amendment, the right to have an attorney or otherwise be assigned one. If the accused is financially unable to hire an attorney, the court appoints one. That can affect the results of the case depending on the assigned attorney. What if the attorney did not wish to accept the case in the first place and was simply forced upon, thus fought it half-heartedly? This flaw was evident in The 12-Angry-Men. The lawyer representing the accused was appointed and thus missed a lot of details that might have turned the case around if he fought for the boy whole-heartily. Again, this is an issue of prejudice. The single jury from The 12-Angry-Men was able to see the flaws in the prosecuting team's argue because he was unbiased and saw the accused as innocent until he can prove him guilty. We think this is the most glaring issue with this amendment. 

Effect On Us 

We believe that this amendment is absolutely crucial and fundamental, just like the Freedom of Speech or the Freedom of Religion. We cannot imagine trials conducted unfairly or with prejudice, it is a right that has been ingrained into our way of thinking, a given.

 As teenagers living in a big city like Philadelphia, we are frequently surrounded by crime. It is simply ridiculous to imagine a justice system that does not grant the right to a speedy trial or an impartial jury. If the accused were held indefinitely in jail but later found to be innocent, the true wrongdoers could be roaming free and committing more crime, making our city an even more dangerous place than it now is. If there is bias within the jury, then an innocent may be sent to jail when the true wrongdoer continues his crime. [Mastermansocsci37] I personally live in a neighborhood where I do not always feel safe in, so I am thankful that trials are conducted speedily with an impartial jury and witnesses to be summoned. I think this justice system allows for efficient trials that can help control the city's crime rate.

[37] Likewise, if I or a family member were to be arrested and charged for a crime, I would feel safer in the hands of our justice system, which grants a higher chance of correct judgment. My uncle has previously been involved in a trial, and due to financial issues, he was not able to hire his own attorney and thus was assigned one. Not being fluent in law or English, it would've been to his huge disadvantage had the court not hired an attorney for him to later prove his innocence.