More handpicked essays just for you.
Analyse alternative dispute resolution methods
Analyse alternative dispute resolution methods
Analyse alternative dispute resolution methods
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Q1. What is the dual-court system? Why do we have a
dual court system?
A. The dual-court system is the result of a general a agreement
among the nation's founders about the need for individual states to retain significant legislative authority and judicial autonomy separate from federal control. The reason why we have a dual-court system is, back then; new states joining the union were assured of limited federal intervention into local affairs. The state legislatures were free to create laws, and state court systems were needed to hear cases in which violations of those laws occurred. Today, however, state courts do not hear cases involving alleged violations of federal law, nor do federal courts involve themselves in deciding issues of state law unless there is a conflict between local or state statues and federal constitutional guarantees. When that happens, claimed violations of federal due process guarantees especially those found in the Bill of Rights.
B. Could the drive toward court unification eventually lead to
monolithic court system? Would such system be effective?
No, the drive towards court unification could eventually lead to a monolithic court system because the would give the federal court system too much control and besides, state legislative would make the better decision when it comes to the needs and local affairs. This would not be an effective solution because the system is too complex. The state legislature is better fit to make right decision about local affairs.
Q2. Chapter 8 says that 90% of all criminal cases carried beyond
the initial stages are finally resolved through plea
bargaining. What are some of the problems associated with
plea bargaining? Given those problems, do you believe
that plea bargaining is an acceptable practice in today's
criminal justice system?
A. The problems associated with plea bargaining are entered
pleas may be choose for the punishment likely to be associated with them rather than for their accuracy in describing the criminal offense in which the defendant was involved. For instance, a charge of indecent liberties, for example, in which the defendant is accused of sexual
Indeed, plea bargaining is a “necessary evil” because it brings advantage to all sides, including the prosecutor, defendant and the court judges. Its necessity does not constitute its constitutionality, however, and plea bargaining should be limited in certain cases because it can be problematic in various aspects. In light of its inevitability, a categorization system can be employed to limit the use of plea bargaining and ensure its fair use, and that there should be specific guidelines for plea bargaining in each category of crime. In this paper, the definition and necessity of plea bargaining, as well as its potential problems, are discussed first. Then the paper would introduce the categorization system that originated from a comparative perspective.
The Constitution was the first stepping stone in the national sovereignty of the United States. It is the supreme law that has been valued and upheld since its ratification in 1787. It holds the rights and freedoms of all Americans and gives structure to the government. To uphold this structure, the judiciary branch was established, alongside the legislative and executive, by the Constitution. However, the judicial branch did not always have the power and influence it does today. Because of the 4th Chief Justice, John Marshall, the Supreme Court eventually gained the power and ability to become coequal to the legislative and executive branches. John Marshall’s establishment of Judicial Review in the Supreme Court and his strong federalists
The opposing argument serves as a perfect gateway to the topic of relationship between Federal and State government. In the United States, the Supremacy Clause serves...
Before the adoption of the United States Constitution, the U.S. was governed by the Articles of Confederation. These articles stated that almost every function of the government was chartered by the legislature known as Congress. There was no distinction between legislative or executive powers. This was a major shortcoming in how the United States was governed as many leaders became dissatisfied with how the government was structured by the Articles of Confederation. They felt that the government was too weak to effectively deal with the upcoming challenges. In 1787, an agreement was made by delegates at the Constitutional Convention that a national judiciary needed to be established. This agreement became known as The Constitution of the United States, which explicitly granted certain powers to each of the three branches of the federal government, while reserving other powers exclusively to the states or to the people as individuals. It is, in its own words, “the supreme Law of the Land” (Shmoop Editorial Team).
The court system of any country is a fundamental aspect of the society. In this respect, there are no public institutions in Canada which are subject to public scrutiny like the court system. People expectations of how they are treated by others are guided by laws made by various levels of institutions of justice. The Canadian judicial system, particularly, has undergone major developments and challenges as well. This paper explores three published articles that report on the problem of patronage appointments what lies behind the confidence in the justice system and the relevance of gender and gender equality in the legal profession.
The courtroom is a ritualised space, involving costume, language, spatial organisation and so on, and courts, therefore, constitute performative exercises of power. Discuss some of the ways in which courts demonstrate power and/or power relations.
Proverbs 21:15 New Living Translation (NLT) states, “Justice is a joy to the godly, but it terrifies evildoers.” With that being said, there are “94 district courts, 13 circuit courts, and one Supreme Court throughout the country.” The court systems are not in place to be abused by the representative nor those that are looking for assistance. The court systems exist to provide justice for all.
In 1791, the Bill of Rights, consisting of 10 amendments, was ratified into the constitution. The document’s purpose was to spell out the liberties of the people that the government could not infringe upon. Considered necessary by many at the time of its development, the Bill of Rights became the cause for a huge debate between two different factions: The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists were those who thought that there should be a new Union created with a strong centralized government and individual regional governments. They felt that it was not necessary for there to be a bill of rights because it was implied that those rights the Constitution did not specifically state would be handed down to the states. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists were opposed to such a form of government on the grounds that the Constitution, in which it was outlined, lacked clarity in the protections of the individuals. The Anti-Federalists—whose memory of British oppression was still fresh in their minds—wanted certain rights and guarantees that were to be apart of the constitution (Glasser 1991). A clear demonstration of the Anti-Federalist attitude was performed by Samuel Bryan, who published a series of essays named the ‘Cenitnal Essays,’ which “assailed the sweeping power of the central government, the usurpation of state sovereignty, and the absence of a bill of rights guaranteeing individual liberties such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion (Bran 1986).” Of course, the freedoms stated above are a portion and not the whole of The Bill of Rights. Ultimately, The Bill of Rights was adopted to appease the Anti-Federalists, whose support was necessary to ratify the constitution, and who believed that without the liberties granted therein, the new constitution—that they thought was vague and granted too much power to the central government—would give way to an elite tyrannical government.
The reason for much of this power is the principle of judicial review of the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government at both state and federal level against a written constitution and the power therefore to 'interpret' the constitution. The power of judicial review over the states is laid down in the supremacy clause of article III and the power of judicial review over the other two branches of the federal government is implied in the constitution and by several but by no means all of the founding fathers: "A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of thei... ... middle of paper ... ...
In the early years of the eighteenth Century, the young United States of America were slowly adapting to the union and the way the country was governed. And just like the country, the governmental powers were starting to develop. Since the creation of the Constitution and due to the Connecticut Compromise, there is the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial Power. But the existence of those powers was not always that naturally. In these crucial times, the Judicial Power had problems controlling the other powers. It was a challenge for the Supreme Court to exercise the powers granted by the new Constitution. Federal Government was not generally appreciated and its formation also caused many disagreements and debates.
The United States of America is one of the most powerful nation-states in the world today. The framers of the American Constitution spent a great deal of time and effort into making sure this power wasn’t too centralized in one aspect of the government. They created three branches of government to help maintain a checks and balance system. In this paper I will discuss these three branches, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial, for both the state and federal level.
The Florida court system is composed of four different court structures. First, there is the Supreme Court, which is the highest court system in Florida and according to Florida Courts website, “Decisions stemming from Florida’s highest court have helped shape, certainly, the state itself, but the nation as a whole.” (FL Courts, n.d.) The Supreme Court is comprised of seven Justices and at least five of those Justices must contribute in every case and four must agree so a resolution can be reached. Secondly, there is the District Courts of Appeal which provides the chance for a thoughtful review of decisions of lower hearings by a multi-judge panel. “District Courts of Appeal correct harmful errors and ensure that decisions are consistent with
The American Court System is an important part of American history and one of the many assets that makes America stand out from other countries. It thrives for justice through its structured and organized court systems. The structures and organizations are widely influenced by both the State and U.S Constitution. The courts have important characters that used their knowledge and roles to aim for equality and justice. These court systems have been influenced since the beginning of the United State of America. Today, these systems and law continue to change and adapt in order to keep and protect the peoples’ rights.
...ct that in less serious crimes the defendant will plead guilty in order to receive a better deal.
One of them is the Supremacy Clause in Article VI. It states that the Constitution and federal laws are superior to any state laws and can override any state provisions or conflicts (Dautrich & Yalof, 2016). The 1816 Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee Supreme Court case has also established that states cannot interpret the Constitution and should adhere to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of it (Dautrich & Yalof, 2016). In this way, federalism exercises preemption, according to which federal laws supersede state laws within the enumerated powers issues. Additionally, the full faith and credit clause and the privileges and immunities clause regulate relations between states (Dautrich & Yalof, 2016). Through such provisions, the Constitution provides additional regulation of power in the federal