Abstract This paper discusses the dual courtsystem in the U.S.A. and explains that this system refers to a two courtsystem: the State Courtsystem and the Federal courtsystem. According to the paper, this dual system is an authority division system. The function of each court is discussed as well as court unification and the monolithic courtsystem, where the two courtsystems merge together forming a single courtsystem. In addition, the paper discusses which type of court is more beneficial.
Outline:
Introduction
Dual CourtSystem Court Unification and Monolithic CourtSystem Conclusion
From the Paper "Dual court system started as an assurance of limited federal intervention in local matters during the union formation. Earlier states created their own laws and the laws differed from state to state. Thus state courts were necessary for hearing cases relating to violation of those laws. The formation of the federal laws necessitated the creation of federal court systems. In present scenario, the two systems are distinct entities, neither one of which interferes in the affairs of the other."
Abstract The paper presents a discussion on the dual courtsystem 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 courtsystem. 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 CourtSystem Functions
State Courts Single CourtSystem 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."
Abstract This paper explores the evolution, history, and modern structure of the U.S. Criminal CourtSystem. 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."
Abstract This paper reviews two dissimilar courtsystems: the criminal courts in Washington, D.C. in the United States; and the International Court of Justice (the World Court).
From the Paper "This paper provides of brief review of the a local criminal courts in the District of Columbia Washington D C in the United States .."
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.
Abstract This paper discusses the differences and similarities between the juvenile courtsystem and the adult courtsystem. It then discusses the benefits and disadvantages between the two systems and the differences in the focus of the two systems, from the arrest, to the trial to the methods of punishment commonly employed. The paper concludes with recommendations for the future.
Table of Contents:
Abstract
Introduction
Section A - Differences and Similarities
Juvenile v. Adult Court: The Differences
Terminology
Rehabilitation v. Punishment
Confidentiality
Different Types of Arrests
Adults Can Be Sentenced to Death
Trial Procedures
Similarities
Miranda Rights
Trial Rights
Punishments
Section B - Benefits and Disadvantages of Juvenile Court Benefits
Disadvantages of Juvenile Court Section C - Implications of Abolishing Juvenile Courts Section D - Recommendations for the Future
Requiring Attorney Representation
Minority Representation Issue
Child Development Professionals
Child Competency Standard
Abolishing Juvenile Courts Conclusion
From the Paper "The juvenile justice system was created separately from adult courts at the end of the 19th century. The purpose of the juvenile court was to help avoid the stigma of having a record, and to lean toward rehabilitative rather than punitive. Even though the process is somewhat similar to the adult court process, the juvenile court certainly has its differences. Those differences being a major difference in terminology, trial procedures, more rehabilitation than punitive, and juveniles under the age of 18 can no longer be put to death. The court certainly has more benefits than disadvantages especially with the confidentiality of records and allowing juveniles a fresh start once they enter adulthood provided they stay out of trouble. There are some who believe that abolishing the system would be better as it is viewed as being too lenient. However, to do so would cause a bigger backlog in the adult system just as an example of a problem that would create. There are definite recommendations for the future to improve the juvenile justice system even though it has made great strides since its inception."
Abstract This paper discusses the complicated structure of the US courtsystem. The paper first explains that there is a primary division of the courts between the federal and state levels and then looks at the structures of the courts within each of these levels. In addition, the paper describes the roles of the three primary players within the court room: the judge, the prosecutor and the defense counsel. The paper concludes by pointing out that, ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court has the final say when cases are presented to it and that the reason that such a complex court structure exists is to ensure the rights of the innocent are protected by a checks and balances system.
Outline:
Introduction
History of the U.S. CourtSystem The Federal Court Structure
State Court Structure
Role of the Players in the Courtroom
Conclusion
From the Paper "There are three primary levels within the federal court structure. Those levels are the Trial Courts, the Appellate Courts, and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court which has the final say in all cases. But how it makes it to the Supreme Court is a process as it does not hear cases in the traditional sense in that a prosecutor presents a case of someone who has been charged.
"The first level in the federal court structure is the trial courts. Their limits are set by Congress within the Constitution. They have jurisdiction to hear all federal cases which include all criminal and civil matters under federal law. Each state has at least one district court including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Bankruptcy courts are included as a unit of the district court. In addition there are district courts in the U.S. territories of Virgin Islands, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands."
Abstract Historically, juveniles who came to the attention of the courts were considered less guilty than adults because of their age. This, in turn, developed into an attitude at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th Century that the appropriate role for police and the courts was to guide the young person to a better path. Finally, this led to the idea of 'status offenses'; that is, offenses that would not be crimes if committed by an adult. The paper examines the history of juvenile courts in the American legal system. It discusses issues such as the 'parens patriae' policy, juvenile facilities, rehabilitation, and the status of the system today.
From the Paper "The philosophy of parens patriae allowed the courts, and through them a variety of social service programs, to concern themselves with actions that violated societal expectations. The juvenile system then had a tiered set of offenses, just as the adult criminal system did, but at the bottom of the tier for youths were offenses that were not listed in any criminal code. Police had broad discretionary power at this level and could choose whether to ignore what they saw, to simply talk to the youth or youths in question, or to make an arrest (Wolcott, 2001)."
Abstract This paper compares and contrasts the Federal Courtsystem and the State Courtsystem of the United States. The paper reviews the relative caseloads, the case management, the relative efficiency of each, the resources allocated to both the types of cases, types of defendants, flexibility in sentencing, options, the oversight which governs the conduct of magistrates in both systems, and lastly the perks which come with both jobs.
From the Paper "The United States' judiciary is frequently cited as being one of, if not the best, judiciaries in the world. For most justices in America this acclaim is hard-won for the occupation of judge can be grueling, occasionally thankless and often stressful. With this in mind, the following paper will look at the challenges of being a justice in the United States by looking at the different challenges confronted by a justice in the United States federal court system versus a justice operating within the state court system. "
An analysis of whether expert knowledge, that is presented in court, is in fact true and accurate knowledge and whether it is reliable in court proceedings.
Abstract This paper discusses the truth of knowledge and expertise within the courtsystem 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."
Abstract This paper examines the courtsystem 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 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."
Abstract The paper offers both an overview of France's geography and political structure and a profile of the economic, social, political and economic situation. The paper briefly looks at the nature and extent of France's crime situation and then examines the French justice system; the legal tradition of France, the police forces and the courtsystem. Finally, the paper discusses justice relations between France and the US.
Outline:
France: An Introduction
Present Crime Situation
The Justice System France and the United States: Justice Relations
From the Paper "Republique Francaise (French Republic) is the official designation of the French nation, whose history and culture is known the world over. France as most people know it is a country that produces excellent wines and cheeses, has a language that belongs to the romantic languages, and whose capital city - Paris - is known as the city of lights and have been written about as one of the most quixotic and passionate cities in the world. Although ultimately a victor in World Wars I and II, France suffered extensive losses in its empire, wealth, manpower, and rank as a dominant nation-state."
Abstract This paper reviews why it may be said that criminal court proceedings are almost invariably marked by a high degree of cooperation between competing sides, that is, it discusses the surprisingly degree of cooperation that informs relations between prosecutors and defense attorneys at trial. The paper describes the criminal courtsystem and the attempts to provide a fair trial for both the defendant and society.
From the Paper "Cooperation between Defense and Prosecution and Criminal Courts The following paper shall briefly discuss the surprisingly degree of cooperation that informs relations between prosecutors and defense attorneys at trial. While it is tempting to suppose that the two sides are locked in constant combat and turmoil, their obligations under the law and the characteristic goings-on of criminal court cases actually a level of cooperation that might startle people unfamiliar with the legal process. With this in mind, the following paper will illustrate that even lawyers embroiled in a heated case are far more likely to work together for the cause of justice than they are to work against one another. Surprising though it may sound, defense attorneys and state prosecutors do work together - up to a point."
Abstract In this legal study, the nature of cultural influence on the American courts is examined from the early colonial period to the present courtsystems. By analyzing how cultural influence, such as religion, played a large part in the Salem Witch Trials, it can easily be related to the problematic issues of race that have been a part of the recent Kobe Bryant case. By analyzing the writings of Cotton Mather in relation to modern legal interpretations of Bryant's trial, one can see how popularity and religious influence can affect the outcome of judgment in these particular trials.
