Essay Dual Court System

The use of experts within the tribunal system is exploited to a greater extent in tribunals; Doctors Chartered Surveyors and other professional experts can be called to give their opinion on certain forms of evidence. This is the same typically in the court system but in tribunals the Chairperson can ask questions themselves and ask for opinions, in the courts the

The American legal system consists of two separate levels of court, defined as federalism, which together administer and enforce the laws in the United States. Federalism distributes the government powers between both the federal governments and the state governments, which ensures that the power of the national government is decentralized.

With each state having its own government, disputes arose between individual states. A Federal court system was important and was greatly needed to settle the disputes. States often fought over trade and power. A federal court that controlled all of the states would have helped tremendously. If all the states followed the same rules and had the same federal court, they would have all been

The dual court system differentiates between the state and federal court systems. The federal court system was established in accordance with constitutional law, which allows Congress to ordain federal courts that are separate from and external to the Supreme Court but which also deal with federal legal matters. These separate federal courts are referred to as "inferior courts," in relation to their position in the hierarchy with the Supreme Court at the summit. Each of the inferior courts established by Congress has a specific and unique jurisdiction.

In 1789, each of the thirteen states had already establish a judicial system such as criminal and civil cases. The United States Constitution is the original document in which it established fundamental laws for the national government as well as protecting the right of the citizens. The U.S Constitution was designed to avoid too much power in the system of checks and balances. As years went by, the Constitution began to adapt to the modern changes. Subsequently, the judicial system began to full fill the U.S Constitution’s purpose. Both Federal and State have their own jurisdiction and functions as stated in the Constitution. However, in recent years the judicial system has been broken due to lack of structure in law on the book and law in action.

The U.S. Constitution created a strong government structure for the United States known as federalism. Both the federal and state governments must have their own court systems to apply and interpret their own specific laws. Both federal and state constitutions attempt to do this by specifically spelling out the jurisdiction of their own court systems. For example, U.S Constitution gives Congress the power to make uniform laws concerning bankruptcies, a state court would lack jurisdiction in this matter. Since the Constitution does not give the federal government authority in most matters concerning the regulation of the family, a federal court would lack jurisdiction in a divorce case. This is the main reason why there are two separate court systems in America. The federal court system deals with issues of law relating to those powers implicitly granted to them by the U.S. Constitution. The state court systems deal with issues of laws relating to those matters that the U.S. Constitution did not give to the federal government or deny to the states.

The dual court system permits the federal administration restricted access into each jurisdiction problems and state law is not allowed to be involved in the federal judicial system, without there being some type of encounter at the state or federal stages. Federal courts have the authority to resolve only the cases in which the Constitution allows them to have power over. These types of courts are to be found in the bigger only; specific cases are allowed to be received within the federal courts. For instances, the cases that are allowed to be viewed in the federal courts are cases that include the United States government and other officers that are being sued. The dual court system is not the only part of the story, each level there is a different court chain of command. States often have limited jurisdiction courts, such as traffic courts, trial courts and appellate courts, and supreme courts (Siegel, Schmalleger, & Worrall, 2011). Each trial court adjudicates different offenses. Appellate courts consider different matters depending on where they lie in the court hierarchy. Appeals from state courts can sometimes be heard in the federal courts. Higher-level courts can control the actions and decisions of lower courts, but not the other way around. Despite the apparent complexity, each court has its place. The main focus of the court system is to uphold the law, protect citizens and their rights and resolving

Together with, the Constitution of the United States likewise designed a strong government by establishing a national court system. This helped the government become more secure by having equal justice under law for every citizen including the president. In the document Powers of the Federal it presents the judicial powers and the supreme court. It states, “this branch interprets and ruled the actions of the other branches” (Document 2). This shows that the judicial branch has the ability to run each case according to the law it violated, without the influence of outside factors. Founding a national court system preserved and interpreted the law. Also, this demonstrates that having a court system help the government by equivalent laws enforce

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

As a result of no national court system, governments relied on their state courts in order to enforce and advise laws. No court system made it difficult for the central government to control conflict among the states, consequently threatening the unity and cooperation of the nation. A few state conflicts involve state property and currency. Due to the fact that each state had created their own currency, it has made trading challenging. If two states formed a dispute about the currency, there was no national court system to regulate or control this situation. The states would have to resolve their situation on their own. Another example, is if two states argued over who had control of a certain land in the area. Imagine a river with a reliable drinking source. If Maryland and Virginia were feuding because of the river, there is no national court deciding which state has what land. No national court system could lead to future competition and rivalry, which is not good for the reputation of America. This weakness was addressed in the constitution as congress and court systems were created to regulate issues in the nation. Each state has their own court system based on state laws and right such as marriage laws. The constitution also states a supreme court including inferior or smaller courts in the Judicial branch. Higher order cases are appointed by the supreme court such as McCulloch v.

However in the United States we have what is referred to as a dual court system. A dual court system can be defined as a judicial system comprising federal- and state- level judicial systems. A dual court system separates federal and state courts. According to the book a dual court system is advantageous and desirable because it is parallel to federalism. Federalism is a system of government where power is constitutionally divided between central governing body and various constituent units. In the United States, the federal government makes laws, but federalism also gives the state’s power to make their own laws (Siegel, Schmalleger, & Worral, 2011). The Founding fathers saw it as a way to serve as check on an abusive or tyrannical government.

The United States court system is the institution were all the legal disputes in the american society are carryed out and resolved. However, one single court is not enough to resolve every single dispute in society and that is why the court system is made up of two different courts, the federal courts and the state courts. Moreover, the federal and state courts are made up of several divisions made to handle legal disputes differently depending on its seriousness. For example, the state court is made up of trial courts of limited jurisdiction and probate courts were cases and disputes originate and then move up to trial courts of general jurisdiction, intermediate apellate courts, and courts of last resort respectively depending on the case.In contrast, the federal court consists of district courts, territorial coutrs, tax court, court of international trade, claims court, court of veterans appeals, an courts of military review which then move on to courts of appeals respectively and may ultimately end up in the United States supreme court. In addition, cases from state court may also appeal into the federal court system but not the other way around.

arraignment date. On the date set the defendant will specify if they are guilt, not guilty, or

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.

Looking into criminal justice procedure, many administrations are at work. Starting with the police, to the courts and concluding in corrections. Though all these sectors have different tasks, their combined focus is processing the law. Regardless what the process is called criminal justice will continue to serve with discretion, conviction, and correction. When first presented with the question whether criminal justice is a system, non-system, and network I leaned toward a network. Throughout our discussions, lectures, and readings I felt the process presented itself as a network. Intertwined divisions working for a common goal. Further into my research and help from Webster, I decided that the criminal justice