Background:
    In 1993 Christopher Simmons was sentenced to death but he was still a minor and after 9 years of appeals he finally was admitted into the Missouri Supreme Court. Because of the U.S. Supreme court case's decision in Atkins V. Virginia regarding the execution of the mentally Ill The Missouri Supreme Court decided to review Simmons  case. Using the Atkins case as precedent the Missouri court overturned the conviction and the case went to the supreme court.

Issue:
   Does the execution of minors violate the cruel and unusual prong of the eith amendment and should it be incorporated throughout the states?

Decision:
   In a 5 V. 4 decision the supreme court decided that Simmons was not allowed to be executed provided that it does infringe on the Cruel and Unusual Amendment.
   M: Kennedy,Souter,Ginsburg,Breyer
   C:Stevens, Ginsburg
   D: Scalia and O'connor. Rehinquist and Thomas joined both

Opinion:
  I agree with the decision of the Supreme Court in this case. Because of the ever changing society, I believe that the constitution could not be literal or else it would have to change every frequently in order to evolve with society. The standards of decency could change very quickly given the circumstances and the constitution should consider what is normal at that time. Also according to Atkins V. Virginia executing the mentally ill is unconstitutional so why would executing minors be constitutional?

                                                                 Gideon V Wainwright

Background:

Gideon was charged by the Florida state court with breaking and entering, because he didn’t have the resources to employ a lawyer in his defence he asked one to be appointed for him. The court refused this request because it only applied in federal cases. So, Gideon defended himself and was convicted for 5 years in a state prison.

Issue:

                Does the refusal to appoint an attourney to Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process which is protected by his Sixth and Fourteeenth Amendments?

Decision:

In a 9v0 vote the Supreme court sided with Gideon proposing that it was unfair that he was not appointed a lawyer.

Opinion was unanimous

Opinion:

For this case I completely agree with the Supreme Court. The fact that the amendment only applied to federal cases is ridiculous. All people should be allowed a lawyer if they want one. It is not fair if one side has a educated lawyer and one side does not. That violates the idea of a fair trial. I completely believe that for one side not to have a lawyer because they cannot afford one is totally absurd and unfair.

	Like Justice Black said "lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries."