Abstract My paper in summary describes the differences between the United State’s Constitution and the State of Ohio’s Constitution. Many of the differences were found in the Bill of Rights within each document. Along with the comparisons and contrasts of the Bill of Rights within the two, many differences were found within the governmental structure between the two forms of government, the federal and state constitutions. During my research I was able to find out which had the bigger amount of rights, whether it was the federal side or the state side. In conclusion, my paper helped me learn more about the United State’s Constitution as well as the original Ohio Constitution.
There are also disadvantages with this program. Because the program was reconstructed in 1992 using different methods, data is not able to be compared accurately (ICPSR). Another disadvantage is it only measures crimes that are considered personal or property related, it does not measure business, or commercial crimes and it does not report crimes on individuals under 12 years old. Personal crimes include crimes such as rape and sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, while property crimes consist of such crimes as burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft, and vandalism. Classification also presents difficulties.
There has been a variety of constitutional reforms set up since Blaire’s election into government in 1997, ranging from matters concerning Westminster to legislature, these reforms however have been of mixed impact. One reform set up in 1998 was the human’s rights act. This made it impossible for government to pass legislature unless it fitted with the convention signed by the British Government in 1950. This reform was of great impact as it meant all legislation passed by Westminster and all devolved assemblies must have been given a compatibility declaration from the European Court of Human Rights. This led to the passing of key legislation such as The prevention of terrorism act 2005 and the Criminal justice act 2003 both of which made a great impact on the electorate.
However, this reform of the judiciary had formed conflicts between the government ministers and the judiciary due to several reasons. These included the risk of citizens’ rights as a result of the increasing political role of the judiciary. Some even suggest that judicial power has become controversial due to its increasing political importance. However, the main reason for this conflict between the executive and judiciary can be said to be the Constitutional Reform Act (2005) and the Human Rights Act (2000). The Constitutional Reform Act was intended to represent a separation from the traditional “fusion” model of the UK Constitution and towards a “more explicit separation of powers”, The Relations between the executive and judiciary would therefore be governed by the Act itself.
Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution. People often refer to the UK having an 'unwritten constitution' but that's not strictly true, large parts of it are written down, much of it in the laws passed in Parliament - known as statute law. Therefore, the UK constitution is often described as 'partly written and wholly uncodified' (Uncodified means that the UK does not have a single, written constitution.). Over the years, Parliament has passed laws that limit parliamentary sovereignty. These laws reflect political developments both within and outside the UK.
• It creates two new schemes for dealing with youth crime: child safety orders, which apply to children under the age of 10, and parenting orders, which are made against the parents of a child who has been given an anti-social behaviour order. • Creates sex offender orders, which bar offenders from activities and areas frequented by children. • Abolishes the death penalty for treason or piracy. • Introduces separate offences for crimes that were aggravated by the victim's race or presumed race. • Obliges local authorities, the police and other local bodies to draw up a crime and disorder strategy covering their area.
This process transferred varying levels of power from the UK Parliament to the UK's nations but kept authority over the devolved institutions in the UK Parliament. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all held successful referendums on devolution in the late 1990s. This led to the establishment of separate Parliaments or Assemblies and the democratic election of officials. Devolved powers are decisions that Parliament used to control, but are now taken by the separate bodies, E.G. the Scottish Parliament.
Smaller groups will look at specific policy issues and legislation in detail. There are different committees with different roles e.g. offering advice, producing reports and altering legislation. Parliament has the responsibility to pass new legislation. The majority of new laws or changes to existing laws come from government but the can also come from MP’s, Lords or even a member of the public.
Many laws have evolved and changed meanings over time, and therefore, the “law of our land” must be applied as accurately as possible for the criminal justice system to work effectively. The original content for which the amendment regarding counsel stemmed from a need to reinforce the standards set by colonial Americans when they were facing the English. The right to counsel was not necessarily a positive state because often the counsel appointed was not working necessarily for the defendant’s best interest. Nowhere does the amendment explicitly state that the accused will be provided counsel by the government (Sonneborn, 2004). There has been an addendum that had to be put in place later to combat any legal issues that would have been faced when integrating the right to counsel clause into the modern criminal justice
''The UK constitution is not fit for purpose'' The bulk of liberal democracies in the world are ones of which have a constitution known as codified. The UK does not have a codified constitution or an entrenched constitution. This puts the UK in a small group of liberal democracies to not have a codified system along side with Israel, Saudi Arabia and New Zealand. Instead the UK has a constitution that contains a variety of written and unwritten sources which lays out the laws, rules and conventions of how the UK is to be governed whilst protecting the rights of the citizens. It is a common question amongst political scientists as to whether the UK constitution is fit for purpose.