Even though the courts role in the public policy is not as obvious, courts do play a vital role in the public policy process. One role the courts play in the policy process is by agenda setting. When compared to the legislatures it is somewhat a minor role but a noteworthy one. The main difference between the courts and the legislatures in the agenda setting is the limited problems they can address. One reason for this is because the courts have to wait for the cases to come to them, they cannot seek out cases to address. Instead, the courts must wait for cases to come across their desk or in their original form or through the appellate jurisdiction or the litigation process.
Tribal courts are limited in their ability to set their own agendas, and respond generally to cases brought to them by law enforcement. However, prosecutors have some discretion on accepting or declining cases. They can chose what cases will appear before the court, therefore
…show more content…
They may also make formal advisory reports to state officials, which also result in agenda setting. Additionally, judges are often sought out by state officials on policy matters, and may also be asked to set serve on a variety of task forces that investigate cases.
Policy formation is another way the courts play a role in the public policy process. Decisions of the Supreme Court have set expectations for law enforcement and correction agencies, and their decisions have long term impacts on how the criminal justice system operates, as well as the treatment of offenders. Judges make policy decision that is sometimes referred to as “judge-made-law”, because judges make the decision as oppose to Congress. Judges are seen as practicing judicial activists because their decisions seem to overturn policies made by legislatures or
Prosecuting those who commit crimes is very important to the overall wellbeing of society and the citizens within society. Prosecuting and convicting criminals not only prevents them from committing another crime, it also serves as a deterrent to others that may be considering breaking the law. Many courts make up the judicial branch and these courts are responsible for applying laws made by the government. The courts are made up of courtroom workgroups that are the basis of the courts proceedings.
Judges are a lot like police officers in that they hold a great amount of discretionary power in their courtrooms and their judgments. Judges are required to ensure that the accused is given a fair trial, while also ensuring that the best interest of the public is maintained. There is a great amount of pressure placed on judges today with excessive case loads and pressures from the media and other outside sources.
Norma is someone who cares about what is going on back home when she is not around. The quote, “She would drive a hundred miles round-trip to visit tribal elders in the nursing homes in Spokane.” (pg 67) shows that she went out of her away to go back home to spend time with the people of her tribe. And because it is obvious that she cares for the reservation, my group created a status update of her resharing the nursing home’s post about someone dying and her writing about how she travelling home to visit the nursing home and saying something nice for the man that died.
Libya is a country east of Egypt with just over 6,000,000 people. Libya’s first ruler was King Idris I, he was elected after World War II when the people were looking for a new leader. He was Libya's only King. He established embassies with many large countries such as the U.S. and also allowed U.S. military to come in to restore and maintain the rights of the Libyan people in his first decade as a king. After King Idris I died in 1969, Libya fell apart. A new ruler, Gaddafi, began destroying Libya and its government. In 1972 tensions increased so much between the American and Libyan governments the American ambassador was removed from the embassy in Tripoli. In 1979 all American embassy workers were removed after an attack. In 2011 the people
The federal courts interpret federal laws and state courts interpret state laws, which helps Nevada retain power and assists on making sure the national government does not become too strong. Close to ninety percent of cases heard in the American court system happen at the state level. Examples include: A crime that is a violation of state law such as murder, traffic violations, assault, robbery, family cases and most drug-related crimes. State courts are the final mediators of state laws and constitutions, but their interpretation of federal laws or the United States Constitution could be appealed to the United States Supreme Court. http://judiciallearningcenter.org/state-courts-vs-federal-courts/
Courts impact policy through how they interpret and apply the law. How the federal court wields their
A public policy is the body of principles that underpin the operation of legal systems in each state. In this paper I am going to talk about federal along with state policies. I will discuss each of the policies and how they are similar and how they are different. Federal and State policies are made to help keep our Country running smoothly. If there were no policies then keeping our Country safe would be a hard task. Policies are principles that are set to help make our Country operate on a daily bases. I like to think of it as rules that are set to keep our Country safe; because if there were no rules then everyone would be doing their own thing which could cause for a very disorganized situation.
The main role of the courts is to interpret and apply the law. In terms of a criminal justice process the court serves as the place in which a trial is heard and a sentence decided.
Many years ago, before courts existed matters was handled in a privately or informally. This often led to violence and unjust treatment of innocent people. During the rise of the Greek City States and the Roman Empire law enforcement became a public affair instead of private. (Siegel, Schmalleger, & Worral, 2011). Along with this movement became formalized courts and other criminal justice institutions. This allowed for law enforcement matters to be handled in a more civilized manner for resolving human conflict.
* In the criminal courts a judge and sometimes a jury hears a witnesses testimony and other evidence and decide cases by applying relevant law to the relevant facts. People who are not satisfied with a trial court decision appeal cases to judges in the appellate courts.
Mr. Bernay mention Judge Cardozo of the Court of Appeals of the State of New York, as an example that judges go through different cases a day and having to decide to pick one. How I see that example is that as PR field, no matter what clients we get, we can have a choice to help them or not. Same goes for judges while they decide on a case to work on.
The two basic types of courts in the United States are trial courts and appellate courts. These two types of courts have two entirely different functions. The job of a trial courts is to determine questions of fact. Appeals courts, on the other hand, must determine questions of law. Appellate courts have the right to overrule jury verdicts and judges decisions due to the fact that an appellate court typically concerns itself solely with issues of law. An appeal is not the time to retry the case or to reargue the facts. In civil matters, either party can appeal the decision of the trial court. Usually in criminal matters, however, only the defendant may appeal a criminal conviction and the state is not
There are three women on the Supreme Court, one of whom is Latina, and there is one black justice serving on the Supreme Court (Brown, 2016). This is a major issue. The United States, the “melting pot”, has an extreme lack of diversity in their court system. This is an issue that affects several aspects of society. Decisions made by judges will affect the lives of men, women, and their families. The decisions made by judges can also create law. Unlike political officials, the people do not always have the power to vote judges into their positions. Instead, the people hope that their peers with the power to affect the system choose a candidate that will fight for them. Often times, this does not happen.
The Federal Court System is one of the most essential and significant functions to help settle a matter. Much work is involved in the application of a body of rules and principals of rulings. The path the Federal Courts have to take in order to be heard by the Supreme Court is a lengthy process. Given millions of disputes every year, it becomes impossible for the Federal Courts to be heard by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has jurisdictions that limit the variety of cases that are clearly defined in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has developed specific rules that within the jurisdictions will and will not hear. The Federal Court must show they have extreme and substantial evidence in the outcome of the case. In mootness, the Federal
Not all cases get heard by the Supreme Court. A case can either go through the federal or the state court system, the case comes to the Supreme Court. There are four different ways to reach the Supreme Court. It can be through a petition for an extraordinary writ. There is also a request for certification. A case can also be heard through an appeal, or a petition for a writ of certiorari.