This paper will identify the role of the courts in the criminal justice system today. The Courts and its Purpose The United States court system is a branch of the government that resolves legal disagreements through a legal, judicial manner. The courts use a process called the “Adversary Process” that helps to reach a decision in each case that is presented. In this method, the lawyers in the case present their side of the argument to a judge or jury. Each side presents their case.
The tutorial discussion this week was essentially discussing how the system operates and some of the flaws within the system such as false convictions which come about through human error or in extreme cases racial bias (Alberto F. Alesina, Eliana La Ferrara, 2011). There was also discussion about the members of the jury and if they are qualified or competent to decide he guilt or innocence of an individual based on their opinions and perceptions of the trial. My view on the criminal justice system is that overall the system is adequately effective in terms of providing a fair trial for the accused and well suited to punish individuals based on viable evidence and the judgment of experienced judges and magistrates. These issues reflect the interests of the JSB173 unit because the unit focuses on a fair trial through either the
The role of the executive ‘..includes initiating and implementing legislation, maintaining order and security, promoting social and economic welfare, administering public services and conducting the external relations of the state. The judiciary is made up mainly of professional judges, and their main function is ‘to determine disputed questions of fact and law in accordance with the law laid down by Parliament and expounded by the courts and ..is exercised mainly in the civil and criminal courts.' The question which now arises is whether or not there should be a strict separation of each of the above functions. Locke stated: ..it may be too great a temptation to human frailty..for the same persons who have the power of making laws, to have also their hands the power to execute them, whereby
* What is an order issued by the Supreme Court to a lower court requiring a case for review? A writ of certiorari. Exercises: 1. Explain constitutional law and states powers using Chapter 1, Section 3 as a basis for your answer. Constitutional law is a group of laws made to keep a good foundation and it gives an idea of the outcome of business.
The principle organ of the US state is to legislate, represent and scrutinise the other, safely separated, branches of the government. First of the three elements in which Congress’s primary role plays is in legislation. The very first article of the Constitution lays out how this is done. Bills initiated by both the President and members of Congress are almost certain to be substantially modified as they go through the legislative process, making it very difficult for the President or any political faction to force through their policy agenda. Congress has been somewhat effective in passing laws such as the PATRIOTIC Act under Bush and the Healthcare Reform Act under Obama both show’s that Congress can legislate when it needs be, especially with a majority in both houses.
Each state is divided into districts that have district attorneys that head the district judicial system. Their job is to prosecute criminals to the fullest extent of the law and therefore makes their role the first one in the courtroom participants (Grant, 2003). The judge is second in line of the court participants and presides over the trial from a desk which is usually an elevated platform which is called the bench. The judge has five basic tasks, the first is to maintain order and to preside over the court proceedings. The second task is to determine if the evidence presented by the defense is legal and proper.
A jury can be defined as a group of people (usually 12 in number) who have been selected to consider the issues of fact in a trail in a Court of Law, in order to make a finding as to an individual’s guilt or lack thereof to a standard which is either “beyond reasonable doubt” or “on the balance of probabilities”. In criminal cases, the jury system exists to decide if the defendant is guilty or not. In civil cases, they aim to decide if the claimant has proved their case and the amount of compensation to be awarded. It should be noted that in the United Kingdom a Judge usually presides over civil trials except where a jury is deemed necessary. BRIEF HISTORY OF THE JURY SYSTEM The system is believed to date as far back as Norman times and is thought to have been used as a means of gathering information for the king.
He or she is responsible for ensuring the court proceedings are legal, and that the defendant receives his or her rights to due process of law. The judge does this by setting the rules of the courtroom and acting as a referee between opposing council. Although a judges’ most visible role is during a criminal or civil trial, he or she has many responsibilities. Prior to any court hearing, the judge is responsible for signing search and arrest warrants. Judges also deal with the issue of bail once established that there is enough evidence to hold a criminal trial against the defendant during the preliminary hearing.
Introduction This essay will examine the evolution of the doctrine of command responsibility in the international criminal tribunals and endeavor to determine whether a hierarchy has emerged in the jurisprudence. Command responsibility holds officers accountable for the crimes of their subordinates even when they were not personally involved in those crimes. By imposing a duty on superiors for the prevention or punishment of illegal conduct, the doctrine aims to protect civilians and noncombatants in armed conflict and promote deterrence[1]. Prosecutions based on a theory of command responsibility are complex and invariably reflect a tension between the goals of affording maximum protection to civilians and noncombatants while also protecting the
Consensus Theory CRJU: 4300-992 Dr. David Montague June 18th, 2012 Introduction The consensus theory of criminal law states that society makes its own path and that path is an outcome of social needs and values. The consensus theory’s main purpose is to satisfy a majority at large. The consensus model depends on the idea that society is an integrated whole that seeks stability. There are some laws that represent consensus among people, such as [homicide].In a consensus model, law becomes more important as society becomes more impersonal, because the law is a formalized way of enforcing previously informal social norms. Consensus theory means any area dealing with a problem where several objects must be simplified to one.