An Independent Judiciary

With the young nation of America entered into the 19th century, there were still major issues when it came to the balance of powers of the different government branches. The status of judicial review in the Supreme Court was never pressed upon or given any real structure to. The power of judicial review had appeared many times in history before the set up of the Supreme Court as, in England, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas Sir Edward Coke made the originated the idea . During the ruling of the case of Dr. Bonham’s Case, Coke found that the London College of Physicians had no right to levy fines against anyone who violated their rules. He would later go on to state that, “no person should be a judge in his own case” (Fletcher 12). The act was revolutionary at the time as it set the notion of that an official body of government was needed to give fair governess to the people. The idea would pop up once in a while in events such as the Constitutional Convention where records that were kept by the textbook University of Chicago Law Review saw that “13 out of the 15 delegates made statements that were in support of the idea of judicial review” (Prakash 123). The interesting part about the quote is that it states that the idea of judicial review was in place in America many years before the actually case of Marbury v. Madison. Even in the Federalist Papers No. 78 which was published in May 28, 1788, by Alexander Hamilton, went into lengthy discussion about judicial review. In

The criminal courts are responsible for determining the guilt or innocence of the person that is accused (Griffiths, 2015, p.147). As well as the courts are supposed to conclude the appropriate sentence while protecting their rights of the accused. The outcome that comes from the criminal courts is that the judgement is made to be fair, impartial and no political intrusion. Furthermore, the main focus of the courts is the find the fundamental problems, the interagency and interdisciplinary collaboration and the accountability to the community. (Griffiths, 2015, p.147). The court is supposing to keep the fairness and equality through the society.

Legitimacy of courts has long been an important factor in the judicial system. However, a more recent concern has been diversity. It is becoming increasingly important for the court to represent those who it serves. “The ECJ’s composition remains unreflective of the millions of black and migrant European Union citizens whom it serves”. Judgements of both the domestic courts of England and Wales along with the European Court of Justice, affect the everyday lives of all EU citizens – including those of minority and underrepresented groups. “Outcomes should not be influenced by considerations of political or financial consequences”. Independence is important as it is vital that each judge is able to decide cases solely on the evidence presented to them by the parties in court. Personal independence is always necessary to ensure that the judiciary as a whole of both the land or the community remains independent. In order for the courts to be fully independent, they must represent the diversity of the people and make decisions in accordance with the law with no other influences. With the growing influence of the government over the last century it has become increasingly important that the judiciary fulfils its responsibility to protect the public against unlawful acts of the government. What has therefore also become increasingly more important is the need for the judiciary to be completely independent from the government. The evidence suggests that the courts nowadays are not

Judicial independence is a concept of constitutional law that requires the judiciary o be kept away from all other arms of the government. It requires that the judiciary be free from influence from the other arms of the government and any private individuals. It is vital for the doctrine of separation of powers. Judicial accountability is a principle that brings the concept of keeping the judiciary under scrutiny. It requires that the judiciary and judicial officers be held accountable for their actions while in office (Seibert-Fohr & Muller 2012, p.10). This essay is aimed at discussing these two principles and assess whether the change in the Australian judicial appointments process would enhance judicial independence and judicial accountability with a view of making recommendations where changes are necessary.

The Australian Constitution is a rich amalgam of various classical political principles. The concepts of the Rule of Law and the doctrine of the Separation of Powers evident in Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws are both salient examples of political theses that are central to Australian Constitutional Law. The structure of the Constitution itself and decisions of the High Court of Australia unequivocally validate the entrenchment of the doctrine separation of powers in the Commonwealth Constitution . In particular, the High Court has applied this with relative rigour with respect to the separation of judicial power. The separation of the judicial power is fundamentally critical to upholding the rule of law. The High Court in Wilson v Minister for Aboriginal Affairs noted that “the separation of the judicial function…advances two constitutional objectives: the guarantee of liberty and, to that end, the independence of Chapter III judges” . Kitto J in R v Davidson also identified that the judiciary should be subject to no other authority but the law itself . This is a critical aspect ensuring the concept of legal equality is upheld. Therefore, its role clearly extends to providing checks and balances on the exercise of power by the legislative and executive arms of government . This ensures the liberty of the law and limits the abuse of the judicial system. Judicial Power is defined as “the power which every sovereign must of necessity have to decide between its subjects

The courts play a vital role in the criminal justice system. It provides a forum for laws to be upheld and offers victims justice for crimes committed against them (Siegel, et al., 2011). Furthermore, the role of the court is to impose rulings in a way that is fair and unbiased. While it may be challenging, judges must strive to be impartial and reach decisions based on what the law stipulates. They must also fulfill their role in the criminal justice system by issuing rulings despite the weight of public opinion.

It is believed to be said that people commit crimes because of various reasons and aspects in their life. The community offers their citizens a secure and safe residence to live in. However, some argue that particular individuals are born with specific traits that determine how they react in a negative condition. Individuals make decisions in life that can lead them down the wrong path. An individual may choose to commit a crime, only looking at how it will benefit them. I also believe that people think before they commit any criminal activity. When an individual commits a crime, they act on their own free will. They’re aware of their consequences of their punishment. Also, people can commit crimes due to their society. Such conflicts arise

Under the 6th amendment, defendants have the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury during criminal prosecutions. Beginning in the mid-19th century, a jury was given the full responsibility to decide on the facts of the case (Sparf and Hansen v. United States), leaving the jury with the authority of determining whether a defendant is guilty or innocent of the charges placed upon him/her and the judge with the authority of determining the law (Lippman, p.279). This juries the jurisdiction of ultimate adjudication without court interference when deliberating. Jury nullification derives from this right protected by the 6th amendment. Defined, it is the voluntary decision and act of a jury to knowingly reject the evidence of a

This leads to “inevitable bias being introduced into our political and legal cultures” (Dyzenhaus, Moreau, and Ripstein 544). Because these judges are coming from similar backgrounds, they share perspectives that consequently lead to the suppression of those whose interests are not “adequately recognized or supported by the dominant, mainstream ideologies” (Dyzenhaus, Moreau, and Ripstein 544). It is not hard to understand why some fear a Charter that is so hard to change is violating the principles of democracy. Judges, in no sense, are in the position of moral authority nor are they experts in areas typically concerned with by the government (Dyzenhaus, Moreau, and Ripstein 543). The judiciary is the epitome of contrasting notions when it comes to self-governing, the heart of democracy. Allowing unelected judges to overrule decisions of legislators is problematic for all of society and represents the abandonment of self-government (Dyzenhaus, Moreau, and Ripstein 541).

This paper will cover topics such as; what a court is and what the purpose of the court is. This paper will define the dual court system. In addition this paper will describe the role that early legal codes, the common law and the precedent played in the development of courts. And lastly this paper will identify the role of the courts in the criminal justice system today.

The court structure in the United States is known as a duel court system. A dual court system consists of two separate court systems. The first system consists of state and local courts (Bohm & Haley, 2014). The second system consists of federal courts (Bohm & Haley, 2014). Several different types of courts make up America’s entire court system.

The Constitution of the United States of America says that all federal judges should be appointed to the bench and have lifetime tenure. This is so federal judges may maintain judicial independence and not judge a case for political reasons, but rather how the law applies to the case before them. However, many states still choose to elect their judges by popular vote and justify this because judges make decisions that affect constituents directly. These states maintain that constituents should have the right to choose who is best for them. An election by the people sounds like a fair and trustworthy method, but ultimately, large corporations pump millions into Super PACs to ensure their choice candidate is elected. Judicial elections are often exposed to attacks from special interest groups and Super PACs, thus sometimes making an uneven and corrupt playing field. The fates of fair and impartial courts are at stake, and they should not be for sale.

Many Americans have the good fortune to be brought up believing that they can trust their governmental system. Unfortunately, the American Dream of an unbiased judicial, executive, and legislative branch cannot be equally accessed by all Americans. Some parents find it is necessary to dispel the myth of the American Dream for their children, to protect their young minds from future mental strife and in some cases to protect their bodies from future physical harm. This is a reality in our country today. In the increasingly tense political and social environment corruption festers and bad politics reign. While the situation may seem hopeless, it is important to realize that the struggle to ensure equal rights for all has been a cause that countless people have been committed to throughout the history of our country. They have dreamt and continue to dream of a better future, one in which race and economic status do not define a child’s potential. People have been fighting for equal treatment since nearly the founding of the nation- first to end slavery, then to stop the legal and social practice of segregation. While discovering its point of origin is unlikely, it is possible to examine the time frame which saw the struggle for equality fully developed into the Civil Rights Movement. The movement reached its peak in the 1950s and 1960s with significant figures like Martin Luther King Jr., Bayard Rustin, and Thurgood Marshal.

Question Number or Title: It has been consistently argued that the judiciary in England and Wales is not reflective of society. Critically consider the explanations for the lack of diversity within the judiciary and the extent to which government legislation and initiatives have tried to increase diversity within the judiciary?

This assignment aims to provide a refined understanding regarding the common law defence of reasonable disciplinary chastisement (“RDC”) in South African law, in the context of a statement issued by the South African Minister of Social Development, Ms Bathabile Dlamini (“Dlamini”). Firstly, an analytical response will be given as to whether the author of this text agrees with Dlamini’s statement. Secondly, using her statement as a point of departure, the future of this criminal defence will be discussed, evaluated and channeled towards affirming and producing a concluding remark, by means of case law as judicial precedent and central academic opinions and disputes, as a secondary source of evaluative analysis.