Over-all this paper is an attempt to adequately explain the jury system of the United States of America and how it affects in terms of the individual juror’s demeanor in court, qualifications, selection, rights and obligations to the court and employment absences of the jurors in the jury system. How the Jury System Works In America The Jury system of America is that mechanism which is made mandatory by law which calls on its citizens to decide on controversies and issues in court cases. This puts the administration of justice in the hands of the people themselves to decide who is guilty and who is innocent. The jury is in fact one of the most important and critical aspects of the American legal system. The United States Constitution and all the state laws in fact guarantee that all citizens are given the right to a jury trial because the American
After that, if need be, the case is brought to prosecution. If the prosecution takes that case, then the case is put on trial. This is important because it shows just what the judicial part of government and the court part of the criminal justice system does, and why it is important. So the court systems job is to interpret the law and bring justice. The dual court system is a system in that there are state courts and federal courts.
There is also agreement on an adversary system, procedural due process, and one’s day in court (Zalman, 2008). The most important function of the crime control model is as stated by Packer (1968), ‘the repression of criminal conduct by the criminal process’” “because public safety is essential to personal freedom” (Zalman, 2008, p. 5). The presumption surrounded by this value system is, in American society there will be a breakdown of public order if law enforcement does not keep a tight reign on criminals and their activities, and citizens of this
Within our court systems, there is appeal court, which will handle people that think they are unfairly sentence. This will take some time to happen. We need to have sentencing guideline, to sentences the offender for the right crimes. I believe that sentencing guidelines should play a part in court and corrections. As before, I believe that the guidelines would lean more toward
Court History and Purpose CJA/224 Court History and Purpose According to Siegel, Schmalleger, and Worrall the definition for a court and its purpose is challenging. Court is explained as appointed or elected officers and selected individuals from within the society who decide disputes between private citizens, businesses, or governmental divisions. The main purpose within the many facets of the judicial court is to serve justice for individuals as well as society. Thus, ensuring fair and neutral decisions will be the outcome of disputes and punishment for crimes, which have been obviously unacceptable by the collective conscience of society (Siegal, Schmalleger, & & Worrall, 2011). Judicially a court is a part or a unit of specific branches within the government who have one or more officers which are authorized or founded by statue, laws, and constitutions to have the authority to make decisions regarding controversies or disputes, which are brought before it.
Advocates for victims’ rights have struggled and worked hard over the years to give victims a say and necessary protections under the law, leveling the playing field of perpetrator vs. victim. Victims’ Rights It is my belief that the changes to our laws involving victims’ rights are necessary and shed a positive light on our justice system. Not only are victims’ allowed to face the offender, but they are allowed to tell their story, confer with prosecution, and witness the prosecution, giving the victim some sense of accomplishment and justice. Allowing the victim to be active in a case and the positive perception regarding these rights are what makes the Crime’s Victim Rights Act (CVRA) worthwhile. The one area that I do have a problem with in the current law’s standing is the ability of the perpetrator to confront the victim in court in certain situations, such as rape or other highly emotional topics.
Courts are critical in the American criminal justice because they determine what should happen to people charged with violating the law. Courts are important beyond criminal justice, too. Disputes that arise between private parties, businesses, government officials, and the like are brought to court in order to ensure that they are heard, ideally, in a neutral forum (Siegel, Schmalleger, and Worrall, (2011). To understand the whole court process there are three distinct elements that have to be consider to become a court, it must have proper legal authority and have all of the guild lines within the constitution. Courts are generally found in the judicial as opposed to legislative and executive branches of government, and ‘courts are empowered to make decisions that are binding.
Also people that are in corrections are there to maintain justice. These three components of the criminal justice system work together to create punishment for individuals that are proven guilty and help to stop them from committing other crimes, all while maintaining fairness, and keeping the rest of society safe. The basic rights of citizens are affected by criminal law by preventing citizens from doing any and everything they want to do. As citizens of the United States, we already have basic rights that we are awarded with by being born an American citizen. Basic rights are protected by criminal law.
When we consider theories that are most applicable to the idea of a social institution and how they may apply to organized crime or criminal behavior in generally it is important to consider at least two theories. The Rational Choice Theory and the Theory of Differential Association are two theories that attempt to allow us to gain insight as to how social institution can not only be responsible for creating organized crime but also allude to criminal behaviors and allow us to see how individuals can come to a decision to choose their live their life in this fashion. Rational theory believes organized crime groups can make rational decisions when pertaining to crime and the groups know right from wrong and possess free will. The rational theory believes in harsher penalty and quicker approach when it comes with dealing with criminals. The rational theory offenders discover that committing a crime was not worth it.
Of course society also plays a role in the limiting of judicial discretion. The judges must consider the perspectives on crime by society and how people will react to particular punishments when making the final judgment. Judges consider all factors which limit their discretion while deciding sentences appropriate for crimes. Prosecutors represent society’s case against criminals, because of this the people play a major role in punishing criminals. Legislatures consider societal views on certain serious crimes in the creating of criminal statutes.