Abstract
The paper presents a discussion on the dual court system in the United States. The writer explains the two systems, how they function and then argues that it would not be better to go to a single court system. The paper examines how each system is in the hierarchical form of a pyramidal structure, allowing review and, if necessary, revision by upper-level courts. The paper concludes that, while the dual courts in America do have many elements in common, they each serve a purpose and to dismantle that system would be to defy the Constitution that the nation was built on.

Outline:
Introduction
Explaining Dual Court System Functions
State Courts
Single Court System
Conclusion
References

From the Paper
"Before one can begin to understand why a single court system would be more efficient and inexpensive than the current dual court system it is important to have an understanding of the dual court system and how it works.
The structure and foundation of the dual court system goes back to the writing of the United States constitution. The United States constitution established something called a system of federalism which meant that the federal government has limited authority over the courts in the land while the balance or bulk of that authority is was left to individual states to handle and decide."

Tags:constitution, federal, state, govern

Abstract
This paper explores the evolution, history, and modern structure of the U.S. Criminal Court System. The paper looks at the appellate review process, federal rules of criminal procedure, and the appellate jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Outline
Evolution and History of the Criminal Justice System
Modern Structure of the Criminal Justice System
The Appellate Review Process
The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
The United States Supreme Court

From the Paper
"When the British first colonized the Americas, they adopted their centuries' old "Royal Privy Council" as a judicial system, as a separate branch of government. Prior to the American Revolution, the individual American colonies all developed and maintained their own criminal (and civil) justice systems with absolutely no uniformity among them, either procedurally or statutorily. More importantly, there was no official method for mediating disputes between citizens of different colonies."

Tags:disallowance, adjucate, lawmaking, justices, constitution, checks, balances, judicial

Abstract
The paper attempts to determine whether the United States' courts system is constrained and/or dynamic and uses the classic court case "MGM v. Grokster" as a basis for this analysis. This paper gives an in-depth analysis of the constrained v. dynamic court views as well as an overview of the Supreme Court case "MGM v. Grokster". The paper shows how in the United States, the burden of dispute resolution and correcting both market and political failure has been placed on the courts. Because of these limitations, as demonstrated in the Supreme Court case of "MGM v. Grokster", the paper concludes that the courts are participants of the constrained court view.

Outline:
The Constrained vs. The Dynamic Court View
MGM v. Grokster
The Constrained Court: Doctrinal Constraints
The Constrained Court: Institutional Constraints
The Constrained Court: Cultural Constraints
Impact
Broader Lessons

From the Paper
"The longstanding debate as to whether the United States' courts are dynamic or constrained are based one specific characteristic; are the courts effective at promoting social change?i Gerald Rosenberg argues that while the possibility of social reform isn't completely discounted, "the conditions required for courts to produce significant social reform will seldom exist."ii This theory is based the Constrained Court View's (hereinafter CCV) three constraints: Doctrinal, Institutional, and Cultural. Doctrinal constraints are limits imposed on the courts on derived from the law itself. Many times relating to the specificity of laws, Doctrinal constraints hinder the court's ability to implement decisions, also known as judicial coercion, based on their own expertise or personal preference.iii Institutional constraints are either classified as internal or external, and reflect the way courts are internally organized and the influence of other political actors on court rulings.iv Rosenberg further analyzes the institutional constraints and credits the court's limited nature of rights, and a lack of judicial independence and implementation."

Tags:constrained, dynamic, dispute, resolution, social, change

Abstract
This paper explains that, because of the shift in the level of violence in teen behavior, the focus of the juvenile justice system has gone from one of individualized treatment and rehabilitation to generalized concerns for public safety and accountability in juvenile offenders. The author stresses that possibly the most needed change is the realization that children are no less prone to violent behavior than adults are. The paper reviews the work of four experts, containing ideas such as juveniles should be held morally accountable for their criminal behavior, and the juvenile court must be vigilant to children's due process rights and sensitive to the individual developmental needs of juveniles in each case.

From the Paper
"One hundred years ago, when the idea of criminal justice was evolving from observations of major urban streets, and the need of children trapped therein, society was not confronted with the specter of Columbine High School, in which teens planned and executed an assault on the student population with semi-automatic weapons and home made bombs. Fifty years ago, when the current theories of progressive juvenile justice were being formed, pop culture music did not fill the radio airwaves with messages that encouraged teens to become violent toward a social order that did not understand them. Nor did teens sit for hours engaged in realistic vigilante 3-d simulations in the screens of video games. Although game makers argue that the violent games are only entertainment, and do not have a causative influence on children's behaviors, many of these game are designed in the same way as FBI training simulations, in which new agents are taught to desensitize themselves to the prospect of killing another human being."

Tags:columbine, sensitivity, development, individual, violence

Abstract
This paper examines the court system in Canada as well as the Judges appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada. The author suggests that Canada should follow its American counterparts and be accountable to the public and the other branches of Government which in turn means that it is accountable to the people.

Abstract
This paper discusses the history and philosophy of Belgian law, significant features of criminal and procedural law, how judges and attorneys are educated and attain their positions, sentencing philosophy, and levels of jurisdiction in terms of subject matter and territory. The paper concludes with a comparison and contrast of these features with the American legal system.

Tags:belgian, court, system

Abstract
This paper analyzes to what extent the following statement by Judge Cardozo is recognized by the English courts: "Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with their own body and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient's consent commits an assault for which he is liable in damages". The paper concludes, after a review of several cases in the English court system, that English courts have adhered to Judge Cardozo's statement of principle only to some extent.

From the Paper
"The second part of Judge Cardozo's statement is also recognised by the English court. Hardly can a doctor escape liability for assault if he administers treatment to a mentally competent patient without his consent. Consent can either be obtained orally or in writing (express consent) or implied from the patient's compliance with a procedure (implied consent). Patient's consent to treatment will be held invalid if the doctor is found to have misled a patient in relation to medical treatment. This was illustrated in Potts v NWRHA. The patient had agreed to an injection, which she understood to be a routine post-natal vaccination but which was in reality the controversial long-standing contraceptive Depo-Provera. Her consent to the treatment was obtained by the doctor who, although acted in good faith, misled her as to the nature of what was being done to her. The doctor was therefore held liable in battery. Also, in Appleton v Garret, a dentist deliberately overtreated a number of patients for financial reasons, obtaining their purported consent by giving the impression that the treatment was medically necessary. The court said a surgeon who performed an operation without his patient's consent commited an assault for which he would be liable in damages. Here there was no real consent, and the trespass was of such nature as to justify an award of aggravated as well as compensatory damages. Again in R v Tabassum, a false doctor was convicted of indecent assault. He succeeded in persuading several women to consent to breast examination after claiming that he was conducting research into breast cancer. The court held that where there was a mistaken belief that an examination was being made by a medically qualified person, a person was only consenting to the nature of the act and not its quality. In the absence of genuine consent, therefore, the defendant was guilty of indecent assault."

Tags:hospital, doctors, court

Abstract
This paper discusses the truth of knowledge and expertise within the court system and looks at whether this form of information could represent inaccurate knowledge. More specifically, the paper analyzes whether data such as scientific opinion and expertise, social science evidence and eyewitness testimony are reliable in court proceedings and whether they do, in fact, represent "knowledge."

Table of Contents:
Introduction
Knowledge and Expertise in Court
Conclusion

From the Paper
"The findings of the abovementioned researchers indicate some interesting trends in our conception of "truth", "knowledge" and "expertise" in the modern court system. Though science is honored in modern society as an almost God-like certainty, in the court system (as Bertin & Henifin point out) it holds much less weight. The combined findings indicate that court rulings are based rather on a number of forms of evidence, all of which have been called into question by the researchers. Like Bertin and Henifin, Redding and Reppucci explored a form of court evidence often scrutinized for accuracy - social science evidence. However, unlike Bertin and Henifin, Redding and Reppucci seem to lament the fact that their investigated form of evidence is often overlooked or misconstrued in the field of law, particularly by judges - the ultimate decision-makers. Lastly, like Redding and Reppucci, Kebbell and Giles explored the concept of bias in court in eliciting tainted evidence. Kebbell and Giles demonstrated that the questioning techniques of lawyers can have an impact on the accuracy of eyewitness recollection. The combined findings of these researchers indicate that knowledge and expertise in the court system under current provisions is far from conclusive."

Tags:truth, science, rulings, witness

Abstract
This paper explains the weaknesses of the American judicial system where drug addicts and dealers are trialed and punished but within a matter of weeks are out on the street again, often being rearrested before their parole is up. The writer looks at the new system which has been instituted in order to avoid this occurrence - namely "drug courts". It explains what this system is - a unique court system for drug related crimes - and how, through this system, the courts hope to put an end to the vicious cycle of arrests and convictions, with no purpose.

From the Paper
"For the past several decades, drug use has had an overwhelming effect upon the American justice system, with drug and drug-related crime being the most common offense in almost every community (Drug Strategies, 1996). Beyond the troubling ability of these problems to fill prisons to capacity, the traditional judicial system seemed to have no deterrent effect on these crimes (Drug and Crime Facts, 1994). A disturbing "revolving door" pattern had emerged, with drug offenders moving through the system in a predictable pattern of arrest, prosecution, conviction, incarceration, and release. In a few weeks, sometimes only a few days, the same person was back in the system again, arrested for drug possession or a drug-related crime (National Association of Drug Court Professionals [NADCP], 1997). A particularly difficult problem faced by the system was the growing use of crack cocaine in the 1980s (Miller & Gold, 1994). The legislature passed tougher laws imposing longer sentences, such as the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 and the Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988, and the nation struggled to find a solution for its drug and crime problem ("The Effective National Drug Control Strategy," 1999)."

Tags:narcotics, addiction, arrest, conviction, dealer, law, sentance, parole, detoxification, rehabilitation

Abstract
This paper explains the history and ideals of juvenile courts and argues against the proposal to eliminate the juvenile system. The paper suggests that, instead of disbanding the system, it needs to be reformed and to some degree rebuilt with the original ideals in mind. According to the paper, there should be a limitation on mandatory sentencing and standardized practices, as these reforms challenge the most essential aspect of the juvenile court; the individual treatment of the juvenile.

From the Paper
"The juvenile justice system has been in existence since the civil war ear, when the US was undergoing specific and detailed reevaluation of what and whom had rights that needed to be protected. Children had yet to be protected by compulsory education rules or child labor laws and some were concerned that children if given the legal definition of owned by parents or the state would be the countries "new slaves." Chicago, IL was the location for the first juvenile court and it was established, in part by a Illinois Supreme Court ruling that releases a 14 year old boy from reform school because due process had not been followed to remand him there and he had according to the system committed no crime but was among a percentage of children "at risk" for delinquency based on his family history. (Tanenhaus xiii-xvi) The unanimous ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court that the boy, who was 14 deserved due process and the protection of his rights was titled, The People v. Turner, 55 Illinois 280 (1870). (Tanenhaus xiii)"

Tags:adults, offenders, sentencing, penalties