Gideon v. Wainwright

In 1963 Clarence Earl Gideon was found guilty for breaking into a Florida pool and having the intent to steal from it. In jail he appealed to the Supreme Court requesting a second hearing which he received. The court used it to study the Betts v. Brady (1942) case which stated that the 14th amendment didn't require the 6th amendments guarantee of counsel in criminal cases. Black's argument that every criminal who cannot afford a lawyer should receive one by the court in order to have a fair trial is very strong. Because every individual deserves a fair trial even if they cannot afford a lawyer. And from this case the courts now ruled that under the 6th amendment each individual in a criminal case who cannot afford a lawyer is now presented with one.

Miranda v. Arizona

Ernesto Miranda was found guilty by the Arizona police after a two hour long interrogation when he signed a written confession for the kidnapping an rape of an individual. He appealed the case and argued that he was not advised of his rights to an attorney and that the fifth amendment guaranteed that no person shall be a witness against himself. I believe that the overturning of Miranda's conviction was the right decision because he hadn't know of his right to an attorney. It is the police's job to inform the convicted of his rights because an individual can easily fall into his impairment of judgements from the emotional strain of the interrogation.

Through this case it can bring up the question of how many innocent people are now sitting in prison for false confessions. With the continual strain and pressure put down by interrogators it is obvious that innocent people who are insecure about themselves can fall to be a victim of signing and agreeing to false accusations. It is very unfortunate that these accidents happen and therefore we must make sure that police officers tell each accused their rights.

Miller v. California

In 1973 Miller had sent out a large number of unrequested advertisments of "adult" film and books. With a 5 to 4 in California's favor Miller was found guilty. I believe that because these mailings from Miller were unrequested, he endangered juveniles to exposures of these adult pictures. And without the conscent of the parents it is breaking the law.

Even with free speech or free press a person should not be allowed to produce explicit content without any regulations. There must be restrictions to a certain point so that juveniles are not exposed to those kinds of materials at young ages. Without these restrictions you allow a person to almost do anything they please that may harm others in the process and allowing an individual from going unpunished.

Plessy v. Ferguson

In 1896, a one-eighth black male named Plessy was arrested for sitting in the wrong section of a train and refusing to move. After the Supreme Court found Plessy guilty he appealed with the arguments of violating the Thirteenth Amendement which forbids slavery and the Fourteenth Amendment which states "any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." My opinion on the case is that by trying to give equal rights to both races there must not be separate sections for blacks and whites. Because by doing so you prevent each individual from their freedom of choice.

United States v. Nixon

President Richard M. Nixon was involved in the Watergate scandal, which later revealed secret tapes in which the President had conversations with the White House Oval Office.I believe that Nixon's arguments to not reveal the tapes to the public were inaccurate to the situation. The tapes were not protecting military or national secrets and therefore his arguments were immaculate. I believe just because Nixon was President at the time does not give him the right to proceed with illegal actions. I feel that the courts decisions were the right decision to release the tapes to the public.

Nixon argued that the tapes were no to be surrendered because the executive privilege protected his office from turning in confidential material. But since these tapes were just recordings about the white house they couldn't be protected.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Jane Roe a unmarried pregnant women living in Texas challenged the courts on prohibiting abortions. She argued that under the 14th amendment a fetus is not considered a person and also her decision to have an abortion is protected by the right of privacy stated in the Bill of Rights.With her strong arguments the court voted 7 to 2 in Roe's favor. Although the court voted in favor of Roe's argument they still had two interests in hand.By getting an abortion the patient is still at risk of injury. Also with this law passing people are only considered living people once born.

Promising Much, but Doing Little to Aid the Terminal’s Homeless

Around 100 Homeless people who lived around a terminal is now destroyed in order to build a $4 billion transit hub. Many of the Homeless people are mentally ill who were to receive help in August, but even after 8 months they still have not received help.

City officials responsible for attending to the homeless said the city did everything possible to assist the Transbay population, but critics say that it was too little too late, and that the city has exaggerated the number of people it did help.

I dont understand how the city can just destroy a location where homeless people live and promise to help them find homes and never do it. It shows that the city is only concerned about building a new transit hub and could care less about the people lives.