There are a countless of various kinds of judges with diverse amounts of judicial power. Judges are constantly making decisions that can affect the lives of defendants, which makes them the key figure in any courtroom. Even though judges have the power to change one's life, their decisions can be reversed by higher courts. In comparison to prosecutors and defense attorneys, judges also have certain rules that they are required that are an essential to the judicial process. The judicial process is the sequence of procedures designed to resolve disputes or conclude a criminal case (Champion, Hartley, Rabe 2012). Judges are capable of omitting evidence in a case or granting the establishment of incriminating evidence.
One one of most common misinterpretation among citizens of the United States is that all judges have legal expertise and were once lawyers. Yet, all through the United States in various jurisdictions, many judges were never lawyers along with having no legal training. In many jurisdictions, rather than the judicial expertise of judges, the judicial selection is more a matter of politics.
In 1998, about half of the states did not require U.S. citizenship for persons to hold appellate or trial judge posts (Champion, Hartley, Rabe 2012) The political
…show more content…
The gubernatorial appointment are appointments of judges by governors. Instead of appointing judges that are best qualified to serve, visa judgeships I political appointments (Champion, Hartley, Rabe 2012). Judges in the running that make major contributions to the governor's election campaigns make recommendations to the governor, most of the time, these recommendations result in certain judges being appointed (Pinello 1995). However, some researchers have come to the conclusion that gubernatorial judicial appointments in certain jurisdictions result in racial or gender bias judicial decision making (Pinello
...er to adjudicate a case, or hear about a case and then decide on it. These types of cases do not involve as many parties to reach decision. Criminal cases for example, typically involve a plaintiff, defendant, a lawyer for each party, a judge, and a jury. Administrative law cases do not have a jury. A judge will then make a decision after all evidence is reviewed. If the party is not pleased with that decision may appeal the case. From there, it is heard by an appellate board. If the party is still displeased, they can request that it be appealed a second time and it is then moved to federal court (Beatty, Samuelson, Bredeson 68).
In addition to this, the analysis of law was not considered thoroughly during judicial decisions. Therefore, the court uses backward reasoning where it uses the expected results it wants to deduce to make decisions. Such activities in the justice department have a lot of impediments to the impartiality of judicial system. The rights of the criminal in many instances are affected by the use of such methods to deliver justice. According to Marshall, the legal analysis used to determine the outcome of the courts has reduced since the changes in the judicial system. The rights of the individuals have significantly reduced with the changes in the court system because only the nine judges are privy to the outcome of the court proceedings; they are also not liable to the questions that may be raised about the legality of their
In America we have common law just like Canada. Article III of the constitution is what established the judicial system. The bottom is just the local courts and then state courts. There is also the federal court system where judges are nominated by the president then confirmed by the Senate. These courts include: the 94 district courts, Tax court, Court of Appeals, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Court of Claims, and Court of Military Appeals. With most courts of the United States, juries are the ones who decide whether one is guilty or not. The constitution calls for the creation of the Supreme Court and leaves the responsibility of creating the inferior courts to Congress.
In the Texas court system, judges are elected instead of appointed like in the federal government. In the federal government, the president appoints members to the Supreme Court. This appointment then heads to Senate where the members of Senate will take a vote
Supreme Court and Court of Appeals judges are elected in nonpartisan statewide elections. Mid-term vacancices are filled by appointment. State law requires that nominees are state residents and have practiced law for a minimum of seven years.
Hays, Tom. “Judges On Wrong Side Of The Law.” CBSNEWS.com. CBSNEWS. 7 May. 2009. Web. 31
In 1822, Stephen F. Austin established one of the first courts in Texas and appointed a provisional justice of peace. Since Texas was a part of Mexico at the time, the Mexican governor replaced the justice of peace with three elected officials. (Utexas) Soon after Independence, the republic of Texas under the 1836 Constitution, established a supreme court and allowed Congress to create inferior courts. Judges in such courts were to be elected by Congress. Counties, at the time, had County and Justice of Peace courts, whose judges were popularly elected. With the entrance of Texas into the Union and the adoption of numerous constitutions during the period, Texas retained a similar judicial structure. The current 1876 Constitution created a Supreme Court with appellate civil jurisdiction, the court of appeals, a large number of district, county and justice of peace courts and authorized the legislature to create further courts as necessary. Overtime, the legislature added a number of layers to the judicial system creating a vast and complex judicial system with numerous overlapping jurisdictions between courts. Due to the complicated nature of the current judicial system in Texas, this paper will start by giving a brief explanation of the structure of the current judicial system in Texas and will move on by identifying some strengths and weaknesses in the current system and the need for reforms, present numerous proposed reforms and analyzes why the proposed reforms failed.
This raises questions regarding the candidacy of those being appointed to serve in the judiciary because such individuals might support the interests of the sitting government. For instance, they can utilize the abilities bestowed upon them by the Charter to change laws for the purpose of furthering the agenda of the government (Riddell, Hausegger, and Hennigar 69). Also, such appointments suggest that individuals serving in the judicial system might be less qualified than those who miss out on such selection due to their non-partisan stands. This might affect service delivery because competency is a crucial component of serving justice. Similarly, the tendency of some judges appointed in the judicial system of donating funds to political parties will undermine the independence of the courts leading to serving political interests even in matters of significant public concern (Riddell, Hausegger, and Hennigar 55). Consequently, the issue of patronage remains a critical challenge for the next decade. The reason could be that the commissions or committees that are set to address this problem are not detached from political influence. Mr. Hassan, an engineer and former president of the Ontario Advisory Council on Multiculturalism and Citizenship said that“potential candidates from aboriginal or visible-minority communities are deterred
Throughout the years there has been limitless legal cases presented to the court systems. All cases are not the same. Some cases vary from decisions that are made by a single judge, while other cases decisions are made by a jury. As cases are presented they typically start off as disputes, misunderstandings, or failure to comply among other things. It is possible to settle some cases outside of the courts, but that does require understanding and cooperation by all parties involved. However, for those that are not so willing to settle out of court, they eventually visit the court system. The court system is not in existence to cause humiliation for anyone, but more so to offer a helping hand from a legal prospective. At the same time, the legal system is not to be abuse. or misused either.
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.
Dan Locallo is a very contradicting man. When he began his career as a prosecutor he was anything but polite to the defense lawyers. Locallo himself describes himself as “kind of an asshole” towards defense lawyers (Courtroom 302, 59). During his time as a prosecutor, Dan Locallo became intrigued by the opportunity to become a judge. When Steve Bogira asked Locallo why he wanted to become a judge, his reply seemed simple. Locallo claimed that he never wanted to become a judge because of a “power-trip” he does claim that “the power of attraction was a great influence” (Courtroom 302, 59). However, Locallo admits that the real reason why he wanted to become a judge was because he would have the “ability to make decisions, to do justice” (Courtroom 302, 59). As a judge, Locallo seems to express three different personalities, which tend to change depending on the current case at hand. His personalities are being compassionate judge, being an understanding judge, or being a hard-nose tough judge. Each of these personalities are not only determined by the case, but also by whether Locallo will profit on the long run; whether or not he will get reelected as a circuit judge at the end of his term.
...ies. Depending on the states’ political culture, the judge is elected through popular election either with partisan or nonpartisan elections. The political culture of the state affects the judges’ capabilities to make decisions. Judges are to uphold strict interpretation based on past precedent but it is difficult with social pressure. For example, moralistic Massachusetts passed civic unions for gays, however, in traditionalistic state Georgia would likely deny gay rights.
In conclusion, I have provided the similarities and differences between federal and California judicial system, in which I have compared all three different types of court systems, jurisdiction and the differences between state law and federal constitution. I am blessed to have this opportunity to research on this topic because I was not aware nor acknowledge these similarities and differences. Because of this assignment, I have expanded my knowledge on this subject and I believe this will greatly help me in the
The American system of politics, based on Federalism, distributes power, roles, and responsibilities between the federal government and the state government. Although these two governments are separate, they are unified because of the United States Constitution, the foundation of the laws and the governmental system. Nonetheless, the unity of the two governments has not curtailed the exorbitant number of cases filed in the Supreme Court ranging from gun control to physician-assisted deaths. The Supreme Court final verdict sets a precedent for future cases. As a result, the Supreme Court has a momentous effect in allocating authority between the state and the federal government.
The courts have the function of giving the public a chance to present themselves whether to prosecute or defend themselves if any disputes against them rise. It is known to everyone that a court is a place where disputes can be settled while using the right and proper procedures. In the Criminal court is the luxury of going through a tedious process of breaking a law. Once you have been arrested and have to go to court because of the arrest, you now have a criminal case appointed against you. The court is also the place where a just, fair and unbiased trial can be heard so that it would not cause any disadvantage to either of the party involved in the dispute. The parties are given a chance to represent themselves or to choose to have a legal representative, which is mostly preferred by many.