Recognizing the Limits of the Right to Counsel as a Guarantee of Justice - Núm. 12, Julio 2014 - Revista de Derechos Fundamentales - Libros y Revistas - VLEX 634843441

Recognizing the Limits of the Right to Counsel as a Guarantee of Justice

AutorJohn D. King
CargoFulbright Scholar, Universidad Viña del Mar, 2014
Páginas67-91
67
Revista de Derechos Fundamentales
- UNIVERSIDAD VIÑA DEL MAR - Nº 12 (2014), pp. 67-91
RECOGNIZING THE LIMITS
OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL
AS A GUARANTEE OF JUSTICE
RECONOCIENDO LOS LÍMITES DEL DERECHO A UN
ABOGADO COMO GARANTÍA DE JUSTICIA
JOHN D. KING*
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.
Key words: right to counsel, adversarialism, inquisitorialism, criminal procedure
reforms
ABSTRACT
* Fulbright Scholar, Universidad Viña del Mar, 2014. Associate Clinical Professor of
Law and Director, Criminal Justice Clinic, Washington and Lee University School
of Law, Lexington, Virginia. I would like to thank my colleagues at the University of
Viña del Mar and the Fulbright U.S. Scholar Program for their support during my
time in Chile, and Katherine Moss for her invaluable research assistance.
68
Revista de Derechos Fundamentales
- UNIVERSIDAD VIÑA DEL MAR - Nº 12 (2014), pp. 67-91
JOHN D. KING / Recognizing the Limits of the Right to Counsel as a Guarantee of Justice
Este artículo examina el papel del derecho a un abogado en las causas penales
como garantía estructural, teórica y real de la justicia. Compara el alcance y la his-
toria del derecho a un abogado en los sistemas norteamericano y chileno, y sugiere
que Chile podría benef‌i ciarse mediante la adopción de un enfoque más matizado
de su sistema de adjudicación penal, preservando los elementos propios de un siste-
ma inquisitivo, y a la vez rechazando un sistema adversarial extremo en los delitos
menores. A diferencia de Estados Unidos, donde las consecuencias colaterales po-
tencialmente graves de condenas penales menores hacen necesario un amplio dere-
cho a un abogado, el sistema chileno podría benef‌i ciarse al concentrar los recursos
de defensa sobre los crímenes más graves. Al restringir el alcance del derecho a un
abogado a los delitos más graves, y rediseñar el sistema de adjudicación y el castigo
para los delitos menores, Chile no solo podría lograr ahorros f‌i nancieros sustancia-
les, sino también evitar los problemas de hiperencarcelamiento y de punitivismo
que han llegado a caracterizar el sistema de justicia penal en los Estados Unidos.
Palabras clave: Derecho a un abogado, sistema adversarial, sistema inquisitivo, re-
formas al proceso penal.
Fecha de recepción: 15 de noviembre de 2014
Fecha de aceptación: 2 de diciemnbre de 2014
INTRODUCTION
No country writes on a blank slate when revising its justice systems.
But in designing and implementing its criminal procedure reforms in
the 1990s and early 2000s, Chile had a unique opportunity to learn
from the experiences of other Latin American countries that had already
moved away from an inquisitorial system and toward adversarialism. In
addition to being able to see the early results from its Latin American
neighbors, Chile was able to take a fresh look at the various systems of
criminal adjudication that competed for inf‌l uence over the process of
reform and to learn from their successes and their failures.
This essay examines one discrete but important decision made
during the reform period –the scope of the right to counsel– and
suggests that Chilean reformers may have missed an opportunity to
create a criminal adjudication system that is more just, more effective
and less expensive than the current model. At least in design, Chile
has adopted a highly adversarial system that requires the appointment
of counsel in every criminal case1. This essay suggests that Chile
1 Vid. Ley. 19.718 art. 2, febrero 21, 2001 (Chile).
RESUMEN

Para continuar leyendo

Solicita tu prueba

VLEX utiliza cookies de inicio de sesión para aportarte una mejor experiencia de navegación. Si haces click en 'Aceptar' o continúas navegando por esta web consideramos que aceptas nuestra política de cookies. ACEPTAR