Abstract In this article the author examines the issues surrounding the challenge to an adjudicator's decision. He begins with the job of an adjudicator and how this job developed and what boundaries an adjudicator has. The author quotes many case studies as examples of where an adjudicator can be challenged and what legal right he has to uphold his decision. The paper concludes with the anomalies as he sees it, in the law.
Introduction
Exceptions
Challenges on the Jurisdiction of the Adjudicator.
Natural Justice
Human Rights Act
Other Case Laws
Conclusion
From the Paper "The courts recognize the limitations of the process, but there have been one or two cases recently in which the TCC has taken a dim view of the way in which adjudicators have actually conducted adjudications, particularly where the adjudicator has been in direct discussions with one party without involving the other. Where the judge has found that there has been a breach of the rules of natural justice, the judge has refused to enforce the adjudicator's decision. "
Abstract This paper looks at the doctrine of judicial precedent in the process of adjudication and legal reform in the legal system in England and Wales. Judicial precedent is an important element of the Western legal system, but it is not in continental civil law systems. In particular, it discusses how the judiciary has received much criticism in the procedure of precedent.
From the Paper "The historical power struggle began in the 17th century between the legislature and the Crown (Stuart Monarchy) and ended with Parliament becoming an independent in the power of making law in the name of the Crown. Nowadays, the ultimate power of making new law lies with the primary legislature (Parliament). Parliament has the capability of authorising and altering laws and as Parliament is an elected house, the power is given through democracy, but this is not so in the House of Lords because they are not an elected chamber. The House of Lords has received proposals for reform and those proposals are to modify the traditional form of the Life Peerages Act 1958 and the Peerage Act 1963. "
Abstract The paper discusses the flaws in traditional court systems and juvenile justice courts alike and then shows how alternative adjudication, restoration and rehabilitative processes have proven to have positive outcomes in reducing recidivism. The paper focuses on peer courts, family group counselling (FGC) and the Behavior Management Through Adventure project (BMTA). The paper considers the past and potential recidivism rates for youth processed through the juvenile justice system, and opines that if our goal is to impact crime rates and provide hope for future generations, a punitive approach should never be the first method of control.
From the Paper "The criminal justice system has grappled with various approaches to dealing with delinquency and fluctuated over time with prevention methods, limiting or altering exposure to formal courts systems, rehabilitative, restorative, or retributive strategies. Preventative measures have typically been community-based, non-justice turf approaches aimed at teaching children the woes of deviance and directing them in more healthy lifestyles. Alternative adjudication processes have diverted youth away from traditional stigmatizing systems that serve to reinforce the deviant label. In attempting to develop a suitable sentencing structure for deviant youth, three basic approaches have evolved: the retributive or punitive perspective that maintains a stance based on just deserts and argues a tough-on-crime agenda as a means of effectively dealing with delinquency. Another is the rehabilitative approach, which focuses on repairing behavioral conditions and creating individuals who contribute positively to society; while restorative justice perspectives seek resolution between offenders and victims."
Abstract This paper presents a review of literature that illuminates the many complexities in the decision to try a juvenile as an adult and the legislative move to make this possible in the courts. The paper states that the question of any criminal adjudication, justice and management system's applicability to children has long been a source of conflict in every civilized society. The paper explains that recently, the issue hit the forefront of American consciousness with the recent spate of court decisions culminating in a Supreme Court directive dealing with the illegality of the death penalty for minors.
Outline
Introduction
The Case before the European Court of Human Rights
American Conflicts of Minors' Adjudication as Adults
Kentucky's Grave Concerns
Conclusion
From the Paper "Indeed, juvenile delinquency, including violence, is on the rise distinctly, but the cases of children committing homicides remains rare.(Justice, 1996]) Although the acts and distinctions of minors who commit homicides are heterogeneous, all of these minors are very disturbed, and exhibit extremely elevated rates of neuropsychological abnormalities, weak impulse control, educational failure and truancy. (Wolff, 2001)
Studies have demonstrated that all of these minors who commit homicides have experienced strong family adversities: domestic violence, neglect, child abuse, substance misuse, maternal depression and lack of fathers.(Bailey, 1996) Since homicide committed by children is so rare, population approaches to prevention are not at all realistic as a result."
Abstract The paper discusses how there are no black-and-whites when it comes to human behavior. For example, it is not always to determine at what point yelling at a child becomes emotional abusive or when spanking turns into something physically violent. The paper looks at the difference between spanking and serious physical abuse. The paper contends that more progress needs to be made in terms of adjudication and the legal system. The paper examines the statistical reporting of child abuse and considers whether child abuse is over or under-reported. The paper concludes that as long as many inconsistencies exist with the law, it is necessary for the judicial system to look at sentencing on a case-by-case basis.
Outline:
Introduction
Definition of Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
Spanking Versus Serious Physical Abuse
Study by Baumrind Showing Most Parents Spank Without Ill Impact on Children
Statistical Reporting of Child Abuse Numbers
Disagreement of Over/Under-Reporting of Child Abuse Claims
Investigative/Tool Inconsistencies
Racial/cultural Misrepresentations
American Psychology Association Recommendations
Suggested Actions to Take to Improve Child Abuse Adjudication Problems
From the Paper "However, even within the law there are blurry areas, such as how does one define the word "serious"? Is it necessary, for example, to reprimand parents who spank their children? Is this a "serious" crime? In her article "Parents May Be the Ones Needing Spanking," Pitts cites a study by Dr. Diana Baumrind, a psychologist at the University of California at Berkeley, who followed 164 middleclass families from the time their children were in preschool until their 20s. Results showed that most of the parents used some form of corporal punishment, but giving a mild spanking--defined as openhanded swats on the backside, arm or legs--did not leave their children scarred for life. Although Baumrind opposes spanking, she was able to make a distinction between minor punishments such as spanking and harsher variations including shaking and blows to the head or face."
Why international jurisprudence should avoid claims of universality, and focus on arbitration and crimes against humanity in small or defeated nations.
930 words (approx. 3.7 pages), 2 sources, 2002, $ 33.95
Abstract This paper discusses the role that international jurisprudence plays in conflicts between nations, and how the role of the international courts is being abused by nations, who want to use the reaps of war, rather than negotiations, to settle their disputes.
From the paper:
"The ICJ reveals itself as impotent even when adjudicating against weaker nations, as illustrated by its farcical order that Iran free its American hostages taken after the Embassy was stormed (Meyer 127). Whether with great powers or less powers, international jurisprudence is helpless to resolve conflicts in which one party merely desires to exploit its power.
Where both parties are mutually interested in an arbitrated solution to a dispute, however, international jurisprudence is useful."
Tags: arbitration, court, icj, jurisprudence, nations, un, united, law, war, power, nicaragua, new, zealand, melos
Abstract Those individuals who suffer or are harmed from juvenile crime have, in the past, been excluded in the adjudication (specifically the sentencing) of their cases for reasons of confidentiality rights accorded to accused juvenile offenders. This paper examines a change in that trend for the development of policies and practices that will not only prosecute those juveniles who have committed offenses, but to include those who have been victimized in the court procedures.
From the Paper "In the adjudication of juvenile criminal offences, the juvenile court should consider a number of factors. In the case of minor offences, the court should be concerned with providing a sentence which best attempts to protect the community (i.e., with respect to both punitive and restorative justice). However, in the case of serious or violent criminal offences, in addition to attempting to protect the community, there is a need to consider the rights of those who are the victims of juvenile crime."
Tags: adjuction, procedure, justice, community, witness, victim, rights, politics, children
An analysis of the Wiener case and other Supreme Court decisions related to the President's power to remove from office non-executive officers on federal commissions.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 1 source, 2000, $ 39.95
Abstract Wiener, the plaintiff, sued the federal government after President Dwight Eisenhower removed him from the War Claims Commission (WCC) in 1953. The War Claims Act of 1948 created the WCC to adjudicate personal injury and property claims against the enemy arising from World War II.
From the Paper "Wiener v. United States (1958)
Wiener, the plaintiff, sued the federal government after President Dwight Eisenhower removed him from the War Claims Commission (WCC) in 1953. The War Claims Act of 1948 created the WCC to adjudicate personal injury and property claims against the enemy arising from World War II. Commission members were to serve for the life of the WCC and the War Claims Act contained no provision for their removal. Nonetheless, Eisenhower dismissed Wiener (who had been appointed to the Commission in 1950 by President Harry Truman), justifying his action on executive prerogative and national interest. Wiener sought compensation for wages from the time of his removal to the end of the WCC's existence.
The issue in this case is whether Wiener, as a member of the WCC, served as a..."
Abstract There are at least three counties in the State of New York that have enacted laws or implemented polices allowing for the seizure and forfeiture of privately-owned automobiles upon arrest for a Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) offense. In some counties vehicle seizures are made upon a defendant's first arrest for DWI. In every county, seizure of a defendant's vehicle precedes an adjudication of guilt. After the paper compares the laws between the three New York counties, it examines important Constitutional issues which have arisen from these policies.
From the Paper "Like New York County (City), Nassau County also utilizes a currently existing Code section concerning the disposition of property held by the property clerk as authority for and enforcement of the DWI vehicle forfeiture. Among all three counties examined here -- New York, Nassau and Suffolk (Suffolk County has adopted separate, offense-specific legislation) -- the rationale for application of vehicle forfeiture to DWI is that, since a vehicle is a necessary element of a "Driving While Intoxicated" charge, it is thus an "instrumentality of a crime," and is therefore governed by local law dealing with property disposition held by the property clerk of the local police department."
Abstract The objective of this paper is to evaluate what type of impact judicial review has had on Canada's representative democracy by tracing its evolution. Although it is tempting to focus closely on the more controversial and obvious relationship between judicial review and the Charter, this paper will endeavor to highlight the implications of binding adjudication on issues dealing with the distribution of legislative power since 1867.
Abstract Upon the enactment of the Charter, courts have assumed the role of "guardians of the Constitution", which is of great concern to Canadian politics as judges have neither the necessary training or expertise to decide on political issues that affect the entire nation. The objective of this paper is to evaluate what type of impact judicial review has had on Canada's representative democracy. Although it is tempting to focus closely on the more controversial and obvious relationship between judicial review and the Charter, this paper will endeavor to highlight the implications of binding adjudication on issues dealing with the distribution of legislative power since 1867.
This paper argues against California's "3-strikes law", which attempts to stop repeat criminals by sentencing them to mandatory life in jail after their third offense.
Abstract This paper explains that the 3-strikes law has created a dynamic within the criminal justice system that seeks to punish minor offenses, while shifting focus away from violent offenders. The author points out that, unlike other 3-strikes laws around the country, California's is unique in that it permits a lifetime sentence for any third offense, even one that is non-violent by nature, includes juvenile adjudications of those 16 and 17 years of age, and does not provide a "wash-out" period for long periods of time between offenses. The paper concludes that billions of dollars, nationally, have been thrown towards the 3-strikes legislation, but the intent of the law, to reduced crime, has not necessarily been achieved.
From the Paper "Finally, the 3-strikes rule is unfair in its application. Many argue criminal justice systems throughout the United States are discriminatory, but California's is blatantly so. The 3-strike law has had its most dramatic effect on California's African American population. While only 7% of the state's population is African American, more than 40% make up those convicted under the 3-strike law. Plus, the majority of offenses targeted by the law (robbery, possession of drugs, ect.) are offenses more commonly performed by minority and underrepresented groups."
Abstract This paper examines how the press complaints commission (PCC) is an independent body that deals with complaints from members of the public about the editorial content of newspapers and magazines and how it is accountable for the way in which news is gathered and reported. It looks at the set-up of the PCC and stipulates the pros and cons of it being a self-regulator for British newspapers. It then analyses the PCC's code of conduct and discusses whether or not it is beneficial by examining PCC adjudications.
From the Paper "As a self-regulator, the PCC has a code of conduct that provides special protection to individuals within society (particularly vulnerable groups of people such as children, hospital patients and those at risk of discrimination). Within that code of practice are ethical standards that newspaper proprietors, editors and journalists have to apply to. These principles range from accuracy in newspaper reporting, individuals opportunity to reply, people's privacy not being invaded, members of society not being harassed and intruded on when in grief or shock, listening devices being used to hear unauthorised conversations, criminals nor witnesses being paid in criminal trials, protection of journalist's sources and no misrepresentation of information or photographs."
This paper, written in the style of a legal memorandum, discusses the problem of civil disobedience as it relates to the Oregon Supreme Court case of Huffman & Wright Logging Co. vs. Wade.
Abstract This paper explains that the Oregon Supreme Court lately endorsed a disciplinary damage verdict for trespass stemming from an ecological remonstration. The author points out that, even though the law, at present, authorizes disciplinary indemnity for trespass, this memorandum makes a case that an instruction, which permits the adjudicators to reflect on reasons and viewpoints in measuring disciplinary damages for civil disobedience, breaches both the United States and Oregon Constitutions. The paper concludes that a jury instruction, which permits defendants' motivations to be a factor in measuring disciplinary damages for civil disobedience, is impermissible under both constitutional necessities; furthermore, the First Amendment is suppose to be interpreted to offer respite for civil disobedience and disciplinary damages and ought not to be allowed in this area.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Summary of the Case
Questions Presented
Short Answer
Discussion
From the Paper "The defendants did not dispute the criminal guilty verdict, and they accepted legal responsibility for compensatory damages in the civil suit. On the other hand, they made a case that awarding disciplinary damages would infringe their right to free expression as assured by the Oregon Constitution, as well as, the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Defendants made a case that all of their behaviors were expressive, and citing Wheeler v. Green, claimed that the Oregon Constitution restricts recovery for torts reasoned by "misuse of speech" to compensatory damages, as well as, prevent any verdict of disciplinary damages. For the reason that the defendants considered all of their behavior as expressive and consequently protected from disciplinary damages, they did not demand a jury instruction to bound the evaluation of disciplinary damages to the non-expressive feature of the conduct. The jury instruction actually given was founded on Oregon Uniform Civil Jury Instruction (UCJI) 35.01. The court ordered the adjudicators that they could verdict disciplinary damages if defendants' behavior was motiveless and reasoned damage to petitioner, consecutively not only to penalize defendants but also to discourage parallel behavior by them and others in the future."
