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 takes an in-depth look at knowledge and expertise, further demonstrating how they are defined in different contexts. Knowledge is analyzed in terms of our cultural and legal systems. IN particular, it is considered in terms of eyewitness testimony in court proceedings.

From the Paper
"Knowledge and expertise are intriguing concepts. Knowledge, according to Bertin and Henifin, in our cultural and legal systems constitute two branches: science and law (2002, p. 19). Individuals present knowledge in the courtroom based on apparent expertise: but could this form of information represent inaccurate knowledge? Is data such as scientific opinion and expertise, social science evidence and eyewitness testimony reliable in court proceedings? Do they represent 'knowledge?' The present paper aims to explore these questions."

Tags:knowledge, expertise, court

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
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
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 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 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
The paper considers the case of Infosys and the effectiveness of initiatives used to increase participation in its knowledge management (KM) system.

From the Paper
"Infosys Technologies has used a variety of initiatives in order to improve participation in its knowledge management (KM) system. The KM system was initially implemented in ... but the company did not realize the level of participation that it sought until years later. This research considers reasons that the previous approaches failed to meet the company's expectations and why the most recent initiatives seem to be producing results that will prove successful over the long-term. Initially, the company simply announced..."

Tags:Infosys, knowledge management

Abstract
This paper discusses the complicated structure of the US court system. 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. Court System
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."

Tags:charges, trial, judges, case