Essay on School: Search and Seizure and Government

Submitted By ayshadee
Words: 963
Pages: 4

When a person thinks about the government and the justice system, good thoughts are supposed to come into a person’s mind. The government should be portrayed as a number of caring individuals who want to serve justice the right way. However this is not the case. There are steps that the government must take in order to arrest someone or punish someone for a crime. To ensure that there are no violations in the rights, we have due Process. The role of the government is to protect the people and the government does not do a good job in making the rights of the accused important. The government protects the rights of the accused that are beneficial to the government. There needs to be improvements in searches and seizures, right to counsel and with self-incrimination, to better protect the right of the accused to a reasonable extent. There are certain ways that the government must go about searching someone’s property. The government says that the accused are protected from illegal searches; yet there are so many exceptions to this rule. The accused are supposed to be protected under the right to exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule is used to have any evidence that is obtained illegally, be seen as inadmissible and be thrown out. All it takes for an official to not need to obtain a warrant to search is reasonable suspicion. As long as an official thinks or suspects that something is going on then they can search without a warrant.” Granting that in practice, the exclusion of evidence may be an effective of determining unreasonable searches it is not for the court to condemn as falling below the minimum standard.”(“Enforcing the Fourth Amendment: The Exclusionary Rule). The government easily shows its selfishness. The government’s main focus is how they might look instead of the real problem. The government needs to put the importance of the exclusionary rule and protecting rights that may be violated by officials every day. Everyone cannot pay for counsel, let alone good counsel. The government does provide those who re accused, a lawyer, if they cannot afford one for any specific or non-specific reason. However the attorneys who are appointed to people who cannot afford one are examples of poor representation. “Poor people get what they pay for in lawyers, nothing”. (Glaberson, William. “The Right to Counsel: Woman Becomes a Test Case”) Because the accused persons aren’t coming out of pocket and paying for the lawyers themselves, the attorneys do not put any effort in trying to have the person be found innocent. These public defenders could care less, “you just develop this nausea for a file and you would do anything to stay away from it.” (Glaberson, William. “The Right to Counsel: Woman Becomes a Test Case”). These lawyers demonstrate a lack of care or interest in these people’s cases. Just because the government is paying for these lawyers they do not take any pride or dignity in their work. The government requires that people have an attorney if they cant afford one, now the quality of this defender is not considered just as long as the government can say that they provided these individuals with an attorney. Often times when given the opportunity to speak in one’s own defense people often make the mistake in saying the wrong thing. In court cases the same situation occurs and this is why the government gives the accused the right to not have to testify in their own trial. The right is the protection of self-incrimination. The courts feel that a person has the right to not incriminate himself or herself…