Deon Mason. April 30, 2017. Principles/Practices/Courts.

Gonnerman appeals to the logic of the reader by following Browder’s anecdotes with supportive statistics and investigative findings from reputable sources. She uses the citation of evidence to give weight and help expand on the context of Browder’s experiences. This includes the excerpts of statistical information from studies, such as “in 2011 seventy-four percent of felony cases in the Bronx were older than six months”, which reinforces Browder’s personal experience with the Bronx court system and also clearly indicates that Browder’s circumstance is not an uncommon one. This also includes the citation of the court index card’s text, reading the list of the preposterous amount of delays requested by the prosecutor, which provides tangible and explicit evidence to the reader of the dysfunctionality of the Bronx’s court system, and also helps the reader empathize with Browder’s frustration.

My understanding of the court system has changed almost weekly from the beginning of my semester. I do understand things that I never thought I would’ve have known or even cared about in the least. The book Courtroom 302 has brought an even different side of thinking into this. The book goes into detail about the criminal court in Chicago. He watches all of the actions and different trials that come and go in the courtroom 302. He presents many different cases throughout the book which gives more insight then just a single case.

Throughout the reading of “Just Mercy”, a novel written by Bryan Stevenson, and the movie “The Shawshank Redemption”, there are many examples that represent the corruption within the criminal justice system. The various forms of corruption are expressed through specific cases that have occurred within the criminal justice and through different characters in the reading or the movie that show examples of corruption. The different corruptions categorize into overall groups such as race, gender, and mental capabilities.

Using her ethos as a well-known law professor, Natapoff adds in many Supreme Court and federal-state court cases and legal language used to depict them. With the indented audience being an average student who wishes to learn more about the criminal system this type of language is not appropriate. Natapoff should have kept her writing in the simple tone in which she started her essay off in, allowing for the call to action, in the end, to be improved and stronger. On the other hand, Natapoff’s ethos is an advantage for the article, as it pushes more people to consider and support her thesis because they know her reasons have been shaped through knowledge and understanding. “The Throwaways” advantages come in the form of emotional appeals as readers can easily connect to the stories that the author presents, thinking of their loved ones in the place of criminal informants who end up deceased by the end of their job. However, relying on mostly pathos and leaving go of ethos and logos can lead to a devastating argument, calling for facts to be more dispersed more evenly throughout her

Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor once said “all judges have cases that touch our passions deeply, but we all struggle constantly with remaining impartial.” This statement embodies the importance of a judicial position. Judges are meant to be diligent, hard work, and most of all passionate. These characteristics are the basis of what makes a good, fair, and honest judge. Attorney Rebekah R. Coleman who is a a candidate for Wayne County Circuit Court Judge is an example of these characteristics. She is dedicated to fighting for the right result because its not just a job, its a mission.

It is a judge’s duty to uphold the law and ensure proper procedure and due process are followed during court proceedings. “Although extralegal factors are not supposed to influence a judge’s sentencing decision, studies show they invariably do” (Bohm & Haley, 2011). Ideally judges would remain unbiased, however, this is impossible as an interpretation of the law demands an individual’s perspective. This is why the higher courts, like the Supreme Court, are composed of several judges. Different interpretations are expected. Bohm and Haley explained some of the characteristics most likely to influence a judge’s decision during sentencing are “their prior experiences both in and out of the courtroom, their biases concerning various crimes, their emotional reactions and prejudices toward the defendants, and their own personalities” (2011).

Felony defendants are significantly younger, overwhelmingly male, disproportionately members of racial minorities, more likely to come from broken homes, less educated, more like to be unemployed, and less likely to be married (Neubaur & Fradella, 2014). There are three characteristics of defendants—sex, poverty, and race. They possess few of the skills needed to compete successfully in an increasingly technological society. They are drawn from what sociologists call the urban underclass. The court personnel have little empathy with or understanding of the types of defendants whose fates they must decide. Members of the courtroom work group are essentially middle class.

Prior to this realization the author found himself as being a head strong, young, ambitious, and up and coming prosecutor. He felt that ninety-nine percent of the defendants were guilty and that his only job was to put bad people behind bars. It seemed that he didn’t look at the people he prosecuted as people but as “others” that needed to be reprimanded for committing crimes. To add, he was also aware that the system was unfair, acknowledging that he was aware that during trial ninety-nine percent of police officers lied under oath. Despite all of these things it seemed that his desire for justice outweighed the fact that sometimes justice entails not strictly following the law especially where there is evidence that the law isn’t being adhered to by all

“But government of law, not people, promises much more: to remove the human element from that enormous array of decisions and issues we turn over to judges-encompassing the common law, interpretation of statutes and the broad reach of the federal and state constitutions-by deferring to a higher source, so that we may be, in this large domain, free of ourselves.” (Kairys 1998) (2) The belief of God and of higher being has an important role in the creation and the interpretation of the laws that are in effect today. The judges being the interpreter of law are human beings who also practices religion. They render decisions that are free from bias and influence from their beliefs, religion and even the political climate of the moment but, more often than not, their decisions are primarily based on their own interpretation of the law, their beliefs and the religion that they are practicing. The morality of man comes into play. It become common for judges to have a different interpretation even if they are resolving a similar case with the same nature that had been resolved earlier.

In the United States, the judical branch has the obligation to make reasonable legal decisions according to their discretion. The judicial discretion allows judges to decide legal cases or situation within possible decision under the United States Constitution. Article III under the United States Constitution states that Congress are able to determine the shape and structure of the judicial branch based on their discretion (The Judicial Branch, n.d.). Each judges brings different leadership and life experiences to their courtroom. William S. Gilbert describes how people often become disappointed with the judge discretion, but they are not aware the fairness from the judge’s decision (Judicial Discretion: Melding Messy Facts and Pristine Law,

The criminal justice system, although in theory should be focused on the due process model, seems to operate under the crime control model. In which prosecutors use their discretion to make plea bargains for the highest charges and quickly move cases in and out of the system. Defense attorneys on the other hand are so overloaded that they struggle to give their clients 100% of their efforts, therefore, they must spend their time negotiating pleas to try and satisfy their duties. This analysis will directly look at Cook County’s courts system in regards to its use of the crime control model, prosecutors discretion, and the defenses negotiation for pleas.

As an individual who has never visited any form of court, I was extremely excited to witness our justice system in action for the purpose of this paper. Through the first amendment of the Constitution, the public has a constitutional right of access to criminal proceedings; yet knowing this, I was immensely repentant that as a criminal justice student in hopes of attaining a career in law enforcement have never previously stepped foot in any courthouse. It is paramount that an individual learns how the justice system of the United States is conducted, whether you have committed a crime or not. Attending a courthouse to witness an arraignment, or a criminal trial provides an individual with great insight in to our justice system, and allows us to interact with different members of the court such as, the judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, court officers, and other court personal to further educate one’s self of how the court system comes together.

This essay optically canvasses the cases of three irreprehensible people convicted for gruesome malefactions, costing them approximately a moiety of their lives. By Studying these cases, it shows a miscarriage of the equity system. The cases provide paramountcy to the contention of this essay, which is to prove that the equity system does not invest their time in finding the offender but instead in closing the case as soon as possible. Even if that is to convict or frame an inculpable person. One one hand, Steven Avery was framed for the murder of Teresa Halbach by coercing out a confession from his nephew, Brendan Dassey. On the other hand Ronald Cotton and James Bain experienced lack of obligation from the equity system. As a result not just

On September 18, 2017, I attended both a local court and district court. The cases I saw on this day differed in multiple approaches when allowing one to go about their court hearing. After witnessing two different courts and cases, I executed the differences between the process of justice being managed and the ideal of justice being done. I believe the local court relates to the idea of the sociological theory of criminology due to the idea of the society having an impact on one’s actions. Both courts also coincide with the symbolic image of the “Lady of Justice” and how a court sentence can be balanced, fair, impartial, and has the power to induce a punishment on the guilty. The district court differed demonstrating the criminological theory by allowing the offender the chance to explain and justify their criminal behavior.

On November 30th, 2017 I visited the Guilderland Town Hall. I was able to have first hand experience of what I felt like to watch what goes on during criminal court. In the court room their were a vast amount of people, and in some way each one of these individuals played a role in the way the court room functions. The courtroom consisted of the district attorney’s (plaintiff), defense attorney, the court officers, the clerk, the bailiff, the defendant, the defendants’ family members, other students, and the most important person the judge. In this court the judge handled cases such as drug offenses,