The quality of judges would without a doubt increase if they were appointed. However, I do not agree with the idea of judges being appointed. When looking at the partisan aspect you notice several possible issues with one issue being, is that individual the right person to do the job. Partisan election of judges allows for an individual that may not be as qualified for the job to be elected into the position. Nevertheless the partisan election of judges gives the voters what they want based on party affiliation along with qualifications.
Ideally, being able to elect judges seems like a fair concept. Both parties present a field candidate and the voters decide which to choose; however, this system is flawed. Not only is it difficult for the people to obtain any real information about their candidates, there is also the issue of “…Texas justice being sold to the highest bidder.” As a result, many cases have been influenced because of these generous contributions to the candidates. Rather than electing judicial officials, Texas should adopt a system of having a governor, or the Senate, appoint its judges, then every few years, voters sustain the right to retain those judges if they so desire.
The relevance of juries in the Australian criminal system given the expansion in modern technology has been questioned regarding the effectiveness of ordinary people judging complex legal issues. The jury system was developed in England between the 12th and 15th century, in a time when courts relied more on the theory of a jury judging its own peers. With complex evidence presented in courts and the advances in technology available to the average citizen, the use of the jury system has been reported to have problems regarding the comprehension and impartiality. There are many pros and cons to the jury system currently in use in our Australian legal system, for the jury system to be able to work coherently with our legal system these pros and
I disagree that U.S courts should follow a "hands-off" approach because inmates would have the most disadvantages. Correctional administrators and correctional officers have a common ground and would most likely to stick up to each other if an inmate gets into the bad side of officers and disciplining them inappriopriate ways such as the incident involving the nutraloaf. U.S courts could come up in way that is fair for the inmates and according to their offenses. In the context, the “deliberate indifference” would mean that the prison officials did not violated the Eighth Amendment rights and, therefore, did not put an inmate in harm by wthe continuous serving of nutraloafs. In my definition, deliberate indifference would favor an inmate's
Folks – we need to be sturdy enough to call for referendum to amendment that thoughtless law enshrined in the constitution giving the Supreme Court the ardent dead-on without any form of limitation to summons, prosecute, and indict the citizenry for exercising their first amendment right. What the Supreme Court is doing is scapegoating citizenry who spontaneously express their view of the Supreme Court rulings they felt is antithetical to their fundamental right. Colleague this is not democracy is rather a tyranny at best. The point worth making exceedingly flawless that Supreme Court is not an infallible or foolproof institution.
INTRODUCTION Given what I have learned about the functions and characteristics of the Supreme Court of the United States and the Conseil Constitutionnel of France – in the context of their respective systems of civil, criminal, administrative and constitutional adjudication – I will discuss the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system in offering meaningful remedies for possible violations of constitutionally protected individual rights from the frame of reference of a United States law student. As a Founding Father, I plan to adopt a body of law founded upon the strengths of both bodies of law. In doing so, I will consider, in order, what characteristics of each body of law is best suited to rule on issues of constitutionality, taking
“Good Morning dear classmates and teacher, I will be delivering a speech explaining why the US Judicial Branch is Good but Far from Perfect…” Thanks to the principle of Separation of Powers, the U.S. government is divided into three branches, each responsible for accomplishing specific tasks. “The judicial branch is in charge of deciding the meaning of laws, how to apply them to real situations, and whether a law breaks the rules of the Constitution or not. It is said that The Constitution of the United States is the highest law of our Nation. The U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court in the United States, is part of the Judicial Branch.
Name: Roger Gradler Hour: 5 Date: 12/20/17 “Is the American Jury System Still a Good Idea?” Is the American Jury System Still a good idea? That is a long and complicated questions that could take years to answer. Many people say that it is good because it give the people the right to choose and the right to self government. Another reason I don’t like a jury is because
While the American Justice System may be flawed in its ways of dealing with conflict, no judicial system can be perfect. Many cases can be highly influenced by race and personal feelings rather than the obvious truth. Because of these racial tensions in the court, having a fair trial between African Americans can be next to impossible. Though some people believe that there is no racism, only a flawed Justice system. Many sources claim that the justice system is, in fact biased when judging a criminal court against African Americans.
Continuing on, legislators/magistrates and council people should be elected according to merit. Such officers should have worth in character; otherwise they can do great damage to the community. Governments are divided them into three true forms: kingly rule, aristocracy, and constitutional government, and three corresponding perversions- tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy. Again we see the combining of two forms of government as Aristotle’s preferred route as he praises a third form combining aristocracy and oligarchy used by the Carthaginians to choose particularly their highest level magistrates placing weight both on merit and wealth with merit being the wisdom and knowledge to govern and wealth being the freedom from easy corruption and
Our criminal justice system should have more safeguard’s to prevent innocent people from wrongful death sentencing. People should be against death sentencing because there are lots of reasons innocent people get the death sentencing. How will having more safeguards to help prevent innocent people from the death sentence. , How can we better our criminal justice system? The advantages of our criminal justice system., and The disadvantages of our criminal justice system.
Procedural justice emphasizes the fairness of methods used to achieve outcomes (Thibaut & Walker, 1975). In interactions with authorities, the fairness of the process by which outcomes are achieved may be more important than the favorability of the outcomes themselves (Lind & Tyler, 1988). A relational model of authority (Tyler & Lind, 1992) attributes these effects of procedural justice to individuals' perceptions of fair treatment as an indication of their value and status in society. A substantial body of empirical research has supported many predictions based on a relational model of authority (Hinds & Murphy, 2007; Murphy, 2009; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003a; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003b; Tyler, 2001, 2005, 2006; Tyler & Huo, 2002; Tyler & Wakslak, 2004). For example, research suggests that public support for and satisfaction with the police are based more on how the police exercise their authority than whether the police are effective in controlling crime (Tyler, 2001).
Specialized Courts Specialized courts are commonly known as the problem-solving courts that promote positive reinforcement, support behavior modification, decrease victimization, and reduce recidivism. Examples of specialized courts include drug court and mental health courts. A community might benefit from establishing a specialized court such as a drug court because it follows a comprehensive model that concentrates on reducing criminal actions through treatment and rehabilitation services with the focus being on substance abuse addiction and identifying the cause without jeopardizing public safety and due process (Specialized Courts, 2013).
This week’s reading was on “The Courts” right offed the bat I questioned, what about the courts will I learn about? At the beginning of the reading it gave a short little story which was about assault I questioned in what cased does a person present themselves and to whom do they do it too? Then shortly after asking that question to myself I found my answer in the reading which said, “In a felony case a defendant has the option of having a case tried by a judge or jury”. This was helpful because I were never sure how exactly some cases worked. In the chapter it broke down and explained what, Prosecution, defense, judge, and jury was, it went through and gave exampled on what each thing was which was nice to have a definition of what each thing was along with having an example.
The Introduction The precedent is a decided legal case, which is used as a basis for deciding later similar cases. The English Law system is a legal system where the precedent has a great weight. This law system can be subdivided into two main interrelated branches: statute (or statutory) law and common law. Statute is an Act of Parliament, which starts its life as a bill, goes through the parliament, receives royal assent and becomes law.
