A Comparative Look At Space And Law Essay

Gerald N. Rosenberg discusses the three views on the power of courts to cause social change, as well as the Miranda decision, in his popular and provoking book, The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? Rosenberg examines the underlying beliefs and theories for each of the views, as well as the problems one can encounter with both the constrained and dynamic views of the courts. It is from these problems that Rosenberg creates the Condition Dependent view of court power. To understand Rosenberg’s argument about the power of courts to cause change, it is important to understand the two other models of court power which Rosenberg synthesizes.

This was our first time visiting the court. The historical coach wood and jarrah timber within the structure of the courtroom represented authority and tradition. The high ceilings and the overall architecture instilled a sense of power and security. This was what we expected. We were excited to be in the midst of the rights, privileges and responsibilities of the Australian Judicial System.

It was a gloomy Tuesday morning in Camden on March 18, 2014. Spring break had just began and the free time to do the court observation. The Superior Court of New Jersey had begun a civil action court case that was fairly controversial over how to distribute ones pension to their spouse when filing a divorce. When arriving upon the court house, the whole entire environment surrounding the court was very authoritarian. It seems that the court rooms and such are always located where most of the town’s governing takes place, whether it is just a municipal court, or the superior court just as this one. Before arriving, the presumption was that the court house would like every other court house, big building with large marble stone pillars in

Official courtrooms have a noteworthy part to play in the security of civil rights and liberties. While they may not be associated with the usage of these arrangements, they are the overseers of ethical quality in the public and this implies they can adhere to a meaningful boundary between where there is an infringement of a common right or freedom and how this might be cured. Courts should, in this way, be exceptionally vocal in tending to the issue of social liberties and freedoms and they ought not be benevolent with regards to curing the infringement of the same. I likewise believe that the courts have been traded off an awesome arrangement when managing issues identifying with the infringement of social liberties and freedoms. Cases are conveyed to court and they are frequently rejected for absence of adequate confirmation among different justification for expulsion. This is very terrible given the way that the nationals admire these courts to address their issues. I feel like legal foundations should be more radical in managing this issue and they should practice their autonomy too.

Concepts of ‘accessing’ and ‘achieving’ justice and their definitions are often debated and contested. Achieving and accessing justice may be explained through a segregation of groups. For users of the justice system, access refers to the capacity to effectively utilise the justice system, whereas for the general public access to justice refers to the capacity to obtain appropriate information to evaluate the performance of the legal system and ways in which it operates on their behalf (Martin, 2014). These definitions reveal that both users of the courts and the general public should be very much aware of barriers to its access,

1.Adams orders one thousand widgets at $5 per widget from International Widget to be delivered within sixty days. After the contract is consummated and signed, Adams requests that International deliver the widgets within thirty days rather than sixty days. International agrees. Is the contractual modification binding?

The book Ordinary Injustice: How America Holds Court written by Amy Bach reflects upon “ordinary injustice” that members of society fall victim to by the American criminal justice system. In short, the phrase “ordinary injustice” comes from the improper acts that have become second nature to court officials but has yet to be explained and resolved by other actors in the court. It is noted in the text that “ordinary injustice results when a community of legal professionals becomes so accustomed to a pattern of lapses that they can no longer see their role in them” (Bach 2). This recurring pattern has been easy to identify by outsiders but difficult to handle by insiders of the court. Bach supports this idea by making clear that, “proving mistakes, both visible and invisible, [is] very difficult in the criminal justice system, even for those who are insiders” (258).

Throughout one’s life many are prone to being in one of America’s many courtrooms at least once in their life. Whether it is for a parking ticket, a petty larceny charge, or simply jury duty most citizens have been in a courtroom once or twice. However, it is rare that one knows the many steps and processes that take place when a crime has been convicted. There is an excess number of elements that are introduced and just to name a few it all starts with the occurrence of the crime, then follows the arrest, proceeded by an arraignment, bail hearing and any more steps before finally reaching the final verdict that lands one with guilt or innocence (Neubrauer, Fadella 2013). Based on the laws in place by the United States and the Constitution one must be able to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is doubt at all in the jurors minds, they cannot convict the individual of being guilty and lately this has created a lot of controversy in the United States with many cases being tried. For example, the Casey Anthony case that took place in Florida was one of the most recent states where Common Law and the Constitution were unable to be reconcilable to prove one’s guilt.

courtroom between the victim, and the courts process itself. There are two pieces of literature used

It has also been suggested that judges could use video conferencing facilities from a different location in order to deal with a civil dispute rather than be physically present. This is not without its’ own set of challenges . It is implied that a party in a trial has the right to see a judge “struggling conscientiously with the detail of a case ” which is a “feature of the court system that cannot be discarded ”. In trying to minimise the physical aspect of the judge’s role in court seems to undermine the basic fundamental human rights mentioned in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which states that parties in a trial are entitled to a “fair and public hearing...” . This is because it seeks to reinforce the aspect of the courts moving towards a more ‘impersonal ’ and ‘nonhuman ’ approach to dealing with civil disputes.

On observing the District Court a number of distinctions from the Local Courts were immediately made apparent. Without going in to detail about the actual structure of the courts, they seemed to fit more closely with the traditional schema of a typical courtroom. In particular the larger courtrooms with more facilities combined with the barristers and magistrates wearing their wig and robes seemed to instantly uphold the ideology of justice. It is interesting to note how appearances can automatically provide an impression that justice will be upheld. The

“Witness for the Prosecution” superbly demonstrated a realist view of the operating procedures in a courtroom. The actors within the courtroom were easy to identify, and the steps transitioned smoothly from the arrest to the reading of the verdict. The murder trial of Leonard Vole provided realistic insight into how laws on the books are used in courtroom proceedings. With the inferior elements noted, the superior element of the court system in “Witness

Since we were kids and became conscious of our surrounding, our parents and grandparents instilled in us an awareness of what is right and wrong. In other words, it is a trait of all human beings and fosters from our desire to get along with each other to live a harmonious life. Laws are a set of rules and behaviors set by governments that society illustrate on what people can or cannot do. The purpose of this paper is three-fold: it will identify and define what distinguishes law from ethics and what similarities they share. The second is an analysis of examples of where law and ethics either meet or diverge. Third is the role where law and ethics either meet or diverge.

It’s important to understand how judges come to their decisions, as it can often be more than just simply applying legal principles to get to the relevant solution. It is common for there to be many potential outcomes to a case, and these outcomes shape the way in which laws shift and change thus having a profound impact on society as a whole- our laws are what define our civilization, values, beliefs, and morality. As Lord Dyson stated: “The business of judging often involves a choice between different conclusions, any of which it may be possible to reach by respectable legal reasoning. The choice made is likely to be motivated at a far deeper level by the judge’s own approach to the law”. This essay will cover the role of reasoning in judicial decision-making; how it allows judges to interpret statute and precedent, as well as leading the way for reform and the establishing of new case law. It will also cover the limitations of reasoning, some of which help keep the balance of power in check- Such as binding precedent and the rule of law, as well as other subconscious factors that may influence a judge’s ability to use reason when making a decision.

Rule of law in simplest terms means law rules, that is, law is supreme. The term “Rule of law‟ is derived from the French phrase “la principle de legalite” (the principle of legality) which means a government on principle of law and not of men. Rule of Law is a viable and dynamic concept and, like many other concepts, is not capable of any exact definition. It is used in contradistinction to rule of man. Sir Edward Coke, the Chief Justice in King James I‟s reign is said to be the originator of this principle. However, concrete shape was given to it by Professor A.V. Dicey, for the first time in his book “Law of the Constitution” (1885) in the form of three principles.