2. What are the differences between the two? Basically, Judicial Activism means that judges use their own political and personal thoughts to influence/help rule on a legal matter. Judicial Restraint means that judges do not use their own political and personal thoughts to influence/help rule on a legal matter. 3.
With the defendant they get a shot at leniency from the judge. Then there are some that say plea bargaining is unconstitutional. “Plea bargaining rests on the constitutional fiction that our government does not retaliate against individuals who wish to exercise their right to trial by jury.” (Lynch, The Case Against Plea Bargaining, 2003). essentially this means if the defendant believes in their innocence and want to go to trial the will be punished for standing up for their constitutional rights. It is my belief that plea bargaining is an utter necessity, and though it may not seem just at all times; we as a society can see how hectic the court would be if all cases were brought to trial.
This is true, but to interpret the laws and judge their constitution are the two special functions of the court. The fact that the courts are charged with determining what the law means does not suggest that they will be justified in substituting their will for that of
Secondly, covered is the investigation into this crime, the apprehension and conviction of the offender. Thirdly consideration of the offence and offender, the circumstances that led this victim to the attention of the offender, also an explanation of the type of homicide committed. Finally, suggestion of possible criminal justice interventions which if implemented may have prevented this crime. Before an investigation can begin, a crime needs to be committed and then reported to the authorities. Information pertaining to this crime has been taken from interviews
He concludes by saying anesthesia needs to be abolished, and in order to kill a person we, as a people will find a constitutional way to kill them. The article that Blecker wrote supports his view of executing the death penalty more often and without hesitation. In the beginning, there is an ethical appeal since he is professional in this field, his degree and status is shared to help support his argument to the audience. The audience understands that the author knows what he is talking about and all his arguments have a valid point. He starts by ridiculing his opponents on the death penalty by stating, “Let the
There is a strong case for both sides of this argument, but I believe that the power level given to judges is the right amount in relation to how important a role they play in supporting British society to work to its full potential through their requirement of upholding the law. Although, there is a strong argument to claim that despite this, they may not be the right people for the role as their independence and neutrality can be questioned, with a view that their power should potentially be limited. One of the strongest arguments, which can be used to defend the power given to the judiciary, is that despite what many believe, they can not over rule government, and government can in fact overrule the judiciary through their sovereignty, and this was backed by Lord Neuberger, head of the Supreme Court who claimed that the thought of parliament not being sovereign is ‘quite simply wrong’, highlighting the fact that the power is ultimately not with the judiciary. The judges do not have the power to repeal any laws despite their opinions on them; their job states that it is obligatory for them to enforce the law despite their personal opinions. However they do have the ability to make suggestions to possibly amend the law through highlighting flaws.
It is not considered jury tampering because the prosecution and defense attorneys have the right to know the credibility of the person that would be deciding the fate of the defendant. Why or why not? The only way that I would see it being jury tampering is if after the jurors are chosen, someone starts threatening or trying to coerce the witness to not testify at the trial. Lawyers can also exercise a challenge for cause claiming the juror could not be
“The judge determines the law when, while the jury is responsible for finding facts of the case in most common law jurisdiction”. Is the American jury system still a good idea? Is a good question to ask and in my personal opinion I do not believe it is. The reason why is based on documents B, C, D provides why I feel strong about my opinion. To begin with, the word “sacred crow” is something that is well respected and people do not want criticized.
In the vigilantism cases, although we could all relate to the frustration involved for the actors, we all agree that one must stay within the bounds of the law to seek out justice. The next discussion involved civil disobedience and we found that we agreed that civil disobedience has been helpful historically to help change the laws and improve our society. However, the general consensus on civil disobedience was also that the acts of disobedience must be done in a peaceful manner for the acts to be effective. The final acts of crimes among professionals had another anonymous decision. Our team found that we did not agree with those professionals who chose to commit crimes.
The reason is that for a person who is indeed guilty of the crime and who thinks that he cannot escape conviction because of overwhelming evidence, admitting to a lesser crime with lesser penalties will be the best scenario for him. He gets the benefit of immediate disposition of his case since he no longer needs to hire lawyers to defend him in court. While it is true that existing laws mandate that an accused should be defended by a public attorney in case he does not have a lawyer, the practical reality is that only paid lawyers can competently and adequately defend the accused and that public attorneys do not defend their client’s case to the best of their ability. Moreover, the accused also gets the benefit of lesser time in prison as it is implicit in the arrangement that if he agrees to a lesser crime charged he shall be convicted to a lesser penalty. If he behaves properly in prison his sentence may be further reduced for good behavior and he may find himself out of