Recongnizing the limits of the right to counsel as a guarantee of justice
Loading...
Date
2014
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Escuela de Derecho - Universidad Viña del Mar
Abstract
This paper examines the role of the right to counsel in criminal cases as a structural,
theoretical, and actual guarantee of justice. It compares the scope and history of the
right to counsel in the United States and Chilean systems and suggests that Chile
could benefi t by adopting a more nuanced approach to its criminal adjudication
system, retaining elements of inquisitorialism and rejecting extreme adversarialism
for petty crimes. Unlike the United States, where potentially severe collateral
consequences of even minor criminal convictions make necessary a broad right
to counsel, the Chilean system could benefi t from focusing defense resources on
more serious crimes. By restricting the scope of the right to counsel to more serious
crimes, and by redesigning the system of adjudication and punishment for petty
crimes, Chile could not only achieve substantial fi nancial savings but also avoid the
problems of hyper-incarceration and punitivism that have come to characterize the
criminal justice system in the United States.
Description
Keywords
Right to counsel, Adversarialism, Inquisitorialism, Criminal procedure reforms