Definition Of Maintaining Rule Of Law

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.

Since the conflict model asserts that the criminal justice system’s purpose is to maintain economic and political control by the dominant class, it must be true that the dominant class has access to the system and even the laws that are applied to defendants by judges and by the process of civil procedure. The model informs us, that every decisive aspect of the criminal justice could potentially be controlled by a powerful person or entity. Even the jury selection process is informed by conflict model. In jury selection, the party with the most educated, savvy, and well-connected attorney – usually the costliest – can often control the composition of a jury according to race, gender, and political sway. The conflict model represents the system

Juries are an essential component of Queensland’s criminal justice system. However, the current jury system in criminal law cases does not effectively meet the needs of society. This thesis is established by first examining the role that juries play in the criminal justice system and the various interests of those affected by juries. This is followed by a consideration of arguments for and against juries and reforms that may be made to the jury system. Overall, it will be seen that there are substantial reasons to reform the current system.

In this paper I will provide an analysis of a jury trial; my analysis will focus on the right of the defendant. I will articulate how a defendant 's rights at trial can be assured when it comes to The defendant’s right to a speedy trial, the defendant’s right to an impartial judge and the defendant’s right to an impartial jury.

Juries are a crucial and irreplaceable part of the American justice system. The jury system has been around for hundreds of years. Our founding fathers viewed jury service as a critical part of democracy and self government. Twelve ordinary citizens make up the jury and will form a decision about the case. The jury system is still needed in the twenty-first century because it ensures the accused gets a fair trial and it promotes civic participation.

Power plays a key role in our American Justice System. The practice of law in the United States is,in my opinion, set up in a way to benefit those who have power. Power in law is defined by status in society, wealth, and/or overall legal experience. The people who have this power can influence or even directly create the laws that the entire society must abide by or face consequences at the hands of the state. Wealth can help to pay for the expensive process that is usually involved in legal proceedings. Power gives these members of the society a clear advantage in the court of law, while heavily incarnating members of the lower class. The legal system is made in a way to maintain the current state of power and to benefit and increase the wealth of those in power. True Justice, in this sense, is what is good for those who have and bad for those who have not.

Mark Sutherland describes the best solution towards dealing with a tyrannical judges in chapter nineteen when he says, “In the U.S. Constitution they gave us the tool of impeachment, or the power of “pink-slip,” over judges.” (Sutherland p. 200). Our founding fathers established a system that if a judge could not “restrain himself to applying the law” and could not “maintain a moral record of decisions”, the last place that he should serve is in the American courtroom (Sutherland p. 199-200) If there is one thing that change my thinking on the subject matter, by reading Judicial Tyranny the New Kings of America, it would be that it is time for the American people to rise up and command that our judges be accountable to us again. Clearly, it is our constitutional right to do

In the 2013 case, R v Gittany, the accused, Simon Gittany, requested for a judge-only trial. This was due to the complexity of his murder case and the media coverage which Gittany believed would have influenced the jury’s perspectives and outcome. The complexities and intricacies of a trial that took barristers and solicitors years of expertise to understand and interpret cannot be expected to be completely understood from a group of twelve members from the public. This can be seen in a recent 2013 report from the Sydney Morning Herald, ‘Jurors Need More Direction’ where the NSW Law Reform Commission (LRC) found that the directions given to juries from judges ‘are not working, overly complex and need to be clearer’. However, their imperfections aren’t enough to have them off the trial process as juries allow the public to be involved in the judicial system. Public participation in the criminal trial process creates more confidence in the legal system. Juries are the most democratic aspect of the criminal trial process and are a crucial aspect in representing the interests and needs of the community.

Since the founding of the American Democracy, partisanship has always been a major problem when it comes to political aspects of the law. The Constitution was designed to implement laws into our country that would make our governing body run smoother with fewer conflicts. However, when dealing with Democracy based on the “people’s word” it is hard to avoid such conflicts. Since each citizen in our country has the right to freedom of speech and thought, the interpretation of various parts of the Constitution have become heavily analyzed when dealing with cases of various crimes that happen in the United States. Each judge on the Supreme Court is entitled to his or her own political ideology so it is a constant debate as to whether a judge has biases on a particular issue based on political views. These biases weave through our justice system creating a disarray of views and arguments that always reflect back on the judges and their presentation, or lack their of, of American ways.

As a brief ontime road map I will first show that jury nullification is necessary for the preservation of justice then show that a lack of jury nullification will lead to a direct violation of individual rights.

Jury-fact finding was found to be convenient so judges won’t be crammed so many with cases. In response to Blakely, jury-fact finding become the most popular modification in most states. Among these 13 states, no one was willing to overthrow the idea of presumptive sentencing. Most states intent on keeping their system because they believe that the system presents several benefits such as decreasing unwarranted sentence discrepancies, improving the liability of correctional resource necessities and forming stability and proportionality among

The jury may disagree with the law and instructions the judge have given them over the course of the trial. Jury nullification occurs when all of the evidence shows the defendant committed a crime, and the jury finds them not guilty based on some racial inequality. The jury chose to ignore the evidence and the law and return a not guilty

The rule of law states that nobody is above the law and everyone must follow the law. The citizens as well as the government have to enforce or follow every law and the people feel safe knowing this because they know the government will not just do what it wants. This is the second most important limit behind constitution because laws need to be fair and taken into action in order for the country to have balance and order. When a country has a rule of law, everyone must follow the law even the president must follow these laws also. Therefore the law is even greater than

Juries provide a public opinion which helps show what the public would think about the case and weather the accused is guilty or not guilty.

We can’t write off the rule of law as irrelevant rhetoric: it has been recognised as an important constitutional principle in an Act of Parliament: Constitutional Reform Act 2005- 1. The rule of Law; This act does not adversely affect- (a) the existing constitutional principle of the rule of law, and is routinely cited as a constitutional principle by the courts.