Guilty Until Proven Innocent In the Star Trek Next Generation episode "Encounter at Farpoint" the crew of the Enterprise is prosecuted in a court of law from Earths history, from approximately the year 2500. This court of law held trials in which the only evidence was heresy and conjecture. The judicial system of the time adapted the mentality of the phrase "guilty until proven innocent". It is frightening to think that our moral standards may someday degrade to those depicted in the Star Trek episode. It would seem that the United States Judicial System may be on a path to this fantasy outcome, in the aspect of many innocent people being convicted due to inadequate defenses. The conviction of innocent people due to inadequate defense …show more content…
A common cause for inadequate defenses is simply lawyers who fail to do their jobs. The previously mentioned marine was wrongfully convicted because his defense attorney "did not promptly investigate, seek or interview potential alibi witnesses or pursue any alibi evidence because he believed that the case would never come to trial"("Marine's Rape Conviction Voided..." 2). This example demonstrates that some attorneys simply do not do their duty to adequately defend their client. Common types of inadequate defenses are "defense lawyers who: failed to present defense witnesses (often to establish/confirm an alibi); failed to seek DNA testing or have serology testing done to try to exclude the client: failed to object to prosecutor argument or to evidence introduced by the state: and failed to interview witnesses in preparation for the trial or cross examine state witnesses"(West 4). Also, some less often reported complaints against lawyers include, "failure to investigate, failure to object to an ID, and failure to present expert testimony” (West 4). These failures on behalf of attorneys can be devastating to the defense’s case, such failures would certainly mean conviction for the defendant no matter the fact if (s)he is innocent or not. To summarize, the issue is defense lawyers who either fail to, or chose not to do their job …show more content…
There are standards for lawyers, but it seems that they are not heavily enforced, "Lawyers in these 73 cases fell far short of the 20-year-old professional standards set by the American Bar Association. Their performances also appear inconsistent with standards that the U.S. Supreme court has mandated several times"(Henderson 2). In order to prevent inadequate defenses and to give the defendant the just trial that they deserve, the standards of the American Bar Association must either be heightened or more strictly enforced. To ensure that lawyers are able to handle their cases, some states offer training sessions, "But none of the states requires that lawyers attend those sessions before they try cases. [...] The results frequently are disastrous"(Henderson 6). In fact, “All four states fail to ensure that lawyers have the training and experience to try capital cases competently" (Henderson 6). Also, "The state requires no training for lawyers who handle these cases"(Henderson 7). These examples show that the state does very little to control and regulate the competence and preparedness of their lawyers in certain cases. To summarize, the state must increase and enforce their standards of their lawyers and increase the funding that is given to the lawyers to handle