Civil Justice System

Imagine you are the director of health information services for a medium-sized health care facility. Like many of your peers, you have contracted with an outside copying service to handle all requests for release of patient health information at your facility. You have learned that a lobbying organization for trial attorneys in your state is promoting legislation to place a cap on photocopying costs, which is significantly below the actual costs incurred as part of the contract. (Case Study, p. 20)

A Civil court is as the name implies a court system based on disputes between average citizens which are far different from a criminal court where you are dealing with convicts. Just like a criminal court, a civil court also has a set of procedures listed by the judicial system in 1937 with over 86 different rules. Civil cases usually involve disputes between people or organizations. The court case Fenton v. Dudley in 2014. Fenton V. Dudley is “A lawsuit against lawyers who had filed a Fair Housing Act lawsuit against the plaintiff, which is the person who filed the lawsuit, and it later made its way from federal court to state court” (“Civil Rights -- federal court jurisdiction”). Both Civil and Criminal court both have the privilege of a trial by jury, depending on the circumstance.

The role of the judge in the adversary system of trial, unlike the inquisitorial counterpart, has less involvement in the establishment of facts and the analysis of evidence in cases brought before the court. In the inquisitorial system of trial, the judge has a much more active role in relation to the handling and evaluation of evidence, and where relevant, can actually cross examine and question witnesses if they feel crucial evidence may have been missed. While the inquisitorial system of trial has a seemingly more intrusive judge, having an added legal expert questioning and raising areas where evidence may have been missed, is a significant improvement over a judge who may know evidence has been missed but cannot intervene such is the

The criminal justice system consist of a system of laws and processes that protect community members and the public. It defines which actions causing injury or offence to community members are criminal, and offenders may face fines, imprisonment and/or community service as sanctions for their criminal acts.

The American court system reinforces positive behavior and was designed to protect and provide justice to the members of society. To fully understand how the criminal court system operates, one must examine the role of courts in today’s criminal justice system. They must also understand the purpose of the court system and examine the role early legal codes, the common law, and precedent played in the development of courts.

R(On the application of the Crown Prosecution Service) v Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2002] EWCA Civ 1661; [2003] Q.B 1222

However, not all cases receive the luxury we call justice. Many cases have been turned over and neglected, leaving individuals who patiently await their trial date deprived of justice. Injustice in the judicial system has been an apparent problem for decades. Every case has to be viewed in an unbiased perspective with a sufficient amount of evidence. If these conditions are not met, the possibility for injustice increases drastically.

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 Supreme Court plays a vital role in our society. It has shaped our history and continues to shape our future; however, with every decision that has to be made, there will be varying opinions. To resolve these disputes, the Supreme Court follows strict guidelines to maintain order. These include, but are not limited to, which cases can be heard, who can oversee the hearing, differing opinions in court, evidence presentation, oral argument, motions in court, appearance of counsel, etc.

At trial, the resolution of disputed facts is guided by constitutional guarantees of confrontation and rules of evidence that limit inadmissible and irrelevant information. However many of these protections have been removed, abridged, and ignored at sentencing effectively changing the role of the judiciary in an adversarial system. Since the imposition of sentencing guidelines, an equally critical part of the criminal system has become the sentencing phase which has evolved to become a trial in its own right when its purpose is to address and resolve factual inaccuracies in the PSR. Without the same formalities of trail, the disregard of adversarial protections becomes especially troubling when the PSR primarily serves as evidence enhancing sentencing.

This is evident in the changes made regarding rights for defendants, policies and protocols for avoiding bias in judgment, and presumption of guilt. Now, defendants have the right to present their side of the case and be adequately represented, judges and juries must be neutral parties, and defendants are innocent until proven guilty. The senseless loss of twenty-five lives has clearly had a major impact on the modern American justice system. To prevent these baseless atrocities from ever occurring again, it was necessary to revise the law and ensure true

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

In our modern-era of a technology based democracy, most if not all (people) are exposed to trials by jury’s in diverse forms of media. Less than often, we rarely give these legal inquiries a second thought but every so often there comes a trial that captures our attention and we become apprehended until a verdict is handed down. This sequence has been continued throughout centuries and regardless of the lack of media, in the past there were still specific trials that everybody spoke of. The treatment of the defendant by the courts has always been under scrutiny and either criticised for being too compassionate or too abrasive (?). It is rare as most prefer a skillful lawyer to defend them but it does happen that defendants do represent themselves

“It’s a general problem not specific to the law of the United Kingdom a criminal justice system characterized by an emphasis on crime control rather than due process will inevitably produce miscarriage of justice.”

The Rules of the Statutory interpretation are The literal rule (IRC v Hinchy, 1960), the golden rule(R v Allen, 1872), The mischief rule (Smith v Hughes, 1960) and The Ejusdem generis rule (Powell v Kempton Racecourse, 1899) The golden rule of statutory interpretation may be applied where an application of the literal rule would lead to an absurdity(R v Allen (1872) LR 1 CCR 367). This is law/ legislation, which has been enacted by Parliament and through administrative process. The law enacted by Parliament is known as an Act of Parliament.