Gideon v. Wainwright

[ATFFL]

Correctly decided.  The right to an attorney is a right of the people.  Thus states are compelled to provide them.

[ATFFL]

Correctly decided.  The right to an attorney is a right of the people.  Thus states are compelled to provide them.

Well, it's not that simple. There is a right to bear arms, but the states are not required to provide free firearms to those who cannot afford them.

The text alone would not justify requiring states to provide attorneys to poor defendants. One would instead have to appeal to various precedents that might have indicated the original understanding.

The argument, quite correctly, goes that you cannot have due process of law if you cannot understand the process.  Thus, people need an attorney to help them in such cases.  Since people have the right to an attorney, the state must provide one if they wish to deprive them of life or liberty.

[ATFFL]

The argument, quite correctly, goes that you cannot have due process of law if you cannot understand the process.

That is not so. Depriving someone of life, liberty, or property with due process of law means depriving someone of life, liberty, or property according to the procedures laid down in the law. It does not matter if the people understand them or not. If the law has prescribed a particular procedure, and that procedure has been followed, then the due process requirements are satisfied.

Consider the example of a dangerous insane person. Surely, the law can outline procedures for confining him to a mental institution. But just because he does not understand the procedure, does it follow that the procedure is unconstitutional?

The individual does not have to understand, that is why we provide a lawyer.  Can a person recieve proper due process if they do not understand the process?  Can a person put up an adequate defense of their life or liberty if they have no clue what is happening?  Would you have no problem if there was a law that all court cases must be heard in latin, and a person had to defend themselves if they could not afford a translator?

That is an extreme example, but to many people the law may as well be written in Latin. 

For an insane person, they must be represented by someone who is competent.  This is a point in favor of my argument, not a refutation of it.  If due process does not require a person to understand it, as you have said, an insane person can be sentenced to death without ever understanding what is happening to them.  Unless, of course, they are provided an attorney who can represent them and understands the law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would not follow--the same argument could be made with the right to bear arms.
[/quote]

They are not at all analogous.  You can have the right to a lawyer without ever needing one.  You can have the right to bear arms without ever bearing one.  WHen you do need a lawyer, one is provided.  When you do need weapons, like when you are in the military, you are provided one.  If the state wishes you to bear arms, they must provide.