Court History And Purpose Essay

Within the legal system judges are seen as impartial and diligent decision-makers in the pursuit of justice . In theory, judges are arbiters of truth who, after careful consideration of all information, decide whether the evidence is credible and whether a suspect’s guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But how do judges perform this taxing task? How do they assess the evidence to reach fair decisions? Most importantly, are their decisions fair and do they comply with the principles of due process? The truth of the matter is that we know little about how judges actually decide criminal cases. Judges reside in their chambers and remain out of the public eye while deciding cases. Judicial decision making for criminal cases remains a well-hidden secret in the judge’s chamber.

People in the United States attend court every day for different many reasons. Those reasons could be for traffic violations, civil law suits, or for unlawful criminal acts. No matter what they are all handled and disputed in a court of law. Courts are empowered to make fair and binding decisions upon the facts that are received. There are two types of courts; civil court and criminal court. It is very important that people understand and know the differences between civil and criminal courts. Civil courts handle resolutions between private parties and usually consist of one party suing the other for some type of monetary damages. Criminal

To begin, common law originated in Medieval England in the time of King Henry II. The practice developed sending circuit judges from the King’s central court to travel throughout England to hear the various disputes. The aim of these courts (assizes) was to add consistency and fairness to the legal system. Alongside the traveling courts King Henry also established the jury system. Over time these judges recorded the information of each case they heard as well as the decisions and punishments that were ordered. This is known as case law or common law. This began a justice system that relied on the principle of stare decisis or “to stand by the decision”. This principle developed into the rule of precedent which was used to apply the previous decision to a case with similar circumstance. This system was used throughout the country and thus was known as common law. As the English began colonizing Canada they brought their legal systems with them, which greatly influenced today’s legal system.

Throughout the world many people tend to question the Criminal Justice System and what role is plays to help the people. From different people, you`ll get many different answers as in how they feel about the Justice System. Some feel as if the Justice System is not hard enough on crime committers so this is why many go back and commit more illegal actions. Others feel as if it’s too hard and people do not deserve the punishment they are receiving. The role the Justice System is to help stop crime committers from continuing down the wrong path and doing the wrong thing. The Justice system plans on doing everything it can to help and rehabilitate those who are doing wrong and have no plan on changing themselves. Not only does it do this but

To begin, in our justice system, judges who value the constitution and have a fair mind result in a fair decision. But today in our world, the justice system obtains some bias judges. In the U.S, people like to believe that the operation of the justice system obtains no flaws. But unfortunately, when looking at it more closely, there are a few cases that result as an unfairly decided decision. More importantly, judges should value The Constitution and have a fair mind when in the courtroom. To receive a bias judge, would result in an unfair decision to the opponent. In summary, the justice

The United States Criminal Justice system had been established in order to help keep citizens in line. The use of laws and morals, in which are still evolving today, but is important to the early foundations of this system. The Criminal Justice system has dealt with issues from what is seen as right or wrong. These principles became a huge part of human culture, a way of life, and are seen as an essential aspect of the Criminal Justice system. A commonly known quote “an eye for an eye”, in which became the standard that was adopted in the court systems. The issues of racism and gender roles have shaped our system especially in policing. Three parts of this system can be summoned into policing, courts, and corrections, these three merge and

The legal system consists of many institutions that can cause reoccurring changes within the system due to the people who make, interpret and enforce the laws. (Tsui, J.C, 2014) Changes within the law include regulations and legal content supporting particular institutions or programs. (Tsui, J.C, 2014) Hierarchies in courts and legislation make decisions in agencies and can interact in forums related to judicial trials, legislative hearing, debates and agency rulemakings. (Tsui, J.C, 2014) Having hierarchies within the legislation system allow the opportunity for voices or opinions to be heard and later the adoption for new rules are enacted. Adopting new rules results in the process of litigation that creates issues and opinions that become overruled. (Tsui, J.C, 2014) Litigation processes and adopting new rules can put alternative juvenile justice system and centers in jeopardy. Faith’s Learning and Guidance Center can become the center of debate and can be put in a predicament that non supporters and supporters can decide its faith. Various judicial opinions can lead to many changes within the judicial system that can either turn for better or worse and unintended consequences have a positive or negative impact on the success of a program. (Tsui, J.C, 2014) Not being able to overcome the disruptions from exogenous forces or endogenous failures is a great risk to any

In this paper, I am going to discuss the legal system as the courts handle it, we will take a look at fictional portrayals and an actual court case that occurred. The purpose of this is to ascertain the difference between the two if there is any. In the U. S. A. we have three systems of the government that each have their own specific role independent of each other, but still heavily reliant on the other. These systems all work together in all aspects of the legal system, with the court system heavily responsible for “Enforcement, interpretation, invalidation, and making law.” (The US Legal System, 2009) One of the major

The very concept of impartiality has been warped in recent years by the saturation coverage provided by the electronic media; the public is bombarded with prejudicial information which makes it increasingly difficult for high-profile defendants to receive anything resembling a fair trial. Within the courthouse, the jury is made conscious of the scrutiny which will fall upon its ultimate decision and is thus held hostage by an “accountability to the community,”3 while judges are forced to preside over issues in media coverage as well as issues of trial law. Meanwhile lawyers are compelled to try their cases in “the court of public opinion” just as vigorously as they must try them in the courtroom.

In “the United States its system of law is derived from the English system of Common Law” (Davenport, 2009, p.4). In common Law when one case is settled this set precedent for other cases precedent help maintain a stable sentencing process. A Judge use precedent in the sentencing process. Much time the judge will seek to perform several tasks in the process of sentencing. They will attempt to find alternative method of sentencing. The sentencing process objective has several different views to which are the most productive. Some think sentencing process theory can use the concept of Deterrence.

legal system, in lower courts, where they can utilize case law, also referred to as common law, where the precedent applies. This is known as the principle of stare decisis.

In our judicial system, new cases can be decided based on past decisions in our courts that were of similar circumstances. This means a legal precedent was set, which provides a level of consistency for interpreting the law (Bohm & Haley, 2011). Trial court judges can set precedent, however, it is normally reserved for the written findings of appellate judges (Bohm & Haley, 2011). In fact, appellate judges are obligated to put their decisions in writing (Bohm & Haley, 2011). These written findings set legal precedents and are known by many as common law (Bohm & Haley, 2011).

The greatest impact of the criminal law is the far wider but less visible impact that the day-to-day functioning of the Criminal Justice System exerts on society.The need for Public Safety and Orderis balanced by the need for protection of constitutional liberties.The system of criminal law has produced various components overtime that are necessary for Public Safety in order, while it has also produced mechanisms essential for the protection of the defendants constitutional

Precedent is the process when judge makes a decision, and all future courts must follow it but can only be used if the reasons for previous decisions are known ‘’ratio decidendi’’

The common law is built through judgements made from the higher courts instead of through statutes or written legislations, this common law system is mainly put into place for similar cases to receive fair and similar treatments. This means that judges follow how previously decided cases were treated based on their facts, this is known as judicial precedent. Hence why this is advantage as these opinions are developed and written at the end of trials which then are set as precedents to apply to similar cases in the future, this therefore means that individuals receive a fair and equal treatment. It also assists people with having a better idea on how their cases will be treated depending on the circumstances. For instance, “R v R [1992]” case where the defendant attempted to rape his wife, even though