Judicial Fellowship Program Statement Paper

On the surface, it seems that determining how much power courts have would be a simple task. However, history has proven this to be false. The courts have been viewed in many different ways through out the history of our country. There are three common views of court power that are important for modern scholars of the court system. Those who believe courts have little power to cause social change are said to adhere to the Constrained Court view. Those who believe courts have a great deal of power to cause social change are said to adhere to the Dynamic Court view. The final, and youngest, take on court power combines aspects of the Constrained and Dynamic views into what I shall call the Condition Dependent Court view of power.

Court History and Purpose. The courts are a critical component of American criminal justice because they determine what should happen to people charged with violating the law. Courts are important beyond criminal justice, too. Disputes that arise between private parties, businesses, government officials, and the like are brought to court in order to ensure that they are heard, ideally, in a neutral forum (Siegel, Schmalleger, & Worrall, 2011). Succeeding in liberation and independence is difficult within the world and as simple as legally right and legally wrong. Courts emphasize on the power of the state and the legitimate use of force and protect people against the random use of legislative authority. The tension among the general

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.

The Federal court system and the California court system has similar structures that can be viewed as a three-layer pyramid. For example, on the very top of the pyramid in regards to the federal court system there is the United States Supreme court. Secondly, in the middle of the pyramid there is the United States Court of Appeals. Lastly, on the very bottom of the pyramid is the United States District Courts. On the other end, California’s highest court is known as the Supreme court. In the center of the pyramid for California is known as Court of Appeals. Lastly, at the very bottom of the courts for California is known as the Superior Court. In contrast, the difference is the very bottom of the pyramid where the Federal court

For the past 50 years, America’s criminal justice system has encountered several significant changes dealing with courts and policing. According to Marion and Oliver (2006), the historical Supreme Court rulings like Mapp v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona mold the way courts and law enforcement handle individuals charged with committing crimes. This paper will discuss the evolution of courts and law enforcement reflects the diverse and changing need for today’s population which is first importance, the urgency for cooperation and communication among criminal justice agencies and law enforcement within the country. Individuals must

There are two kinds of court in this country. The two courts are state and federal. In this essay I️ will be briefing you on the things that they have in common and the things they don’t have in common such as behavior in the court and the way they handle the state court room.

The author’s audience and objective that the book Judicial Tyranny the New Kings of America is directed towards, is specifically those interested in learning about the fallacies within our court

America has the highest incarceration rate in the entire world, surpassing countries like China, Russia, and the United Kingdom. Though the United States is home to roughly a small percent of the global population, it holds at least a quarter of prison inmates. And the decreasing rate of incarceration appears to be underwhelming in the circumstances of the last few decades. In his book, Mass Incarceration on Trial: A Remarkable Court Decision and The Future of Prisons in America, Jonathan Simon, who is a professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley, explores the policies that led to the mass imprisonments rates through the stories of prison conditions in California. Simon examines California court decisions by using Brown vs

Over the years the cost of running for judicial office has become more and more costly due to the amount of money it takes to purchase commercial ads and politicking. This has made it necessary to take donations in order to have a substantial campaign here inlays the dilemma; most Texans are indifferent to judicial campaigns leaving the donating to interest groups, lawyers, and possible litigants. Making the possibility for leniency and partiality in future cases where the donators could expect a more favorable outcome in their cases in the judges court. Our book states that 86 percent of judges believed that campaign support had some influences over judicial decisions. This would mean that guilt and innocence could be bought with campaign money endangering our very way of impartial decisions.

The courts play a vital role in the criminal justice system. It provides a forum for laws to be upheld and offers victims justice for crimes committed against them (Siegel, et al., 2011). Furthermore, the role of the court is to impose rulings in a way that is fair and unbiased. While it may be challenging, judges must strive to be impartial and reach decisions based on what the law stipulates. They must also fulfill their role in the criminal justice system by issuing rulings despite the weight of public opinion.

Jonathan Simon is a dean and law administrator, centering on the study of law and society at the UC Berkeley School of law. He’s best known for writing for his work on the role of crime and criminal justice in leading contemporary societies. Simon’s most recent work included a book called “Mass Incarceration on Trial: A Remarkable Court Decision and the Future of Prisons in America”, which was devoted to his mother, Marlene Bragman Simon. She was quite passionate towards serving to alleviate social problems and in search of social justice. Mass Incarceration on Trial gives a shocking impression towards Simon’s disagreement that the representation of a war on crime has converted entirely to the public existence in the United States. An issue in which I believe has gotten out of hand by the political candidates; especially when they regularly oath to be tough on crime for all the wrong reasons. Simon’s main claim is to demonstration that the causes of mass imprisonment and overall incapacitation has completely worsened in the prison community. Milestone cases in which the Coleman v. Wilson, Plata v. Davis, Coleman-Plata v. Schwarzenegger, and Brown v. Plata explored the main development in jurisprudence and glimmer of hope brought upon the protection of the Eight amendments. The cases that challenges California disciplinary

There are three different branches in the government. In these six different scenarios that were given in this prompt. The legislative branch represents the Congress. The congress is led by the House of Representatives and the Senate. What these two figures in this branch do is make the laws of the state. They have the power to pass laws, agree on treaties, and originate on spending bills. In the Executive Branch, it is represented by the president. In this branch the President has the power to propose laws, is in charge of the military, and has the right to veto laws. Last but not least the Judicial Branch, is represented by Federal Judges. They are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. In other words the Judicial Branch enforces the laws and makes sure people are following them as they should be (Branch, no date ).

The California and Federal judicial systems are very similar in how they are designed and how they function. California state courts are established and primarily obtain their power from the California State Constitution. This is similar to federal judicial system in that federal courts derive their power from the United States Constitution. The following paper will compare and contrast the extreme similarities between both judicial systems as well as some of the distinct differences.

The federal court system has several main levels. District courts (The thin court) , circuit courts which are the first level to appeal, and Supreme Court of the United States. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, meaning they can only hear cases authorized by the United States constitution or federal status. The primary difference for civil case is the types of cases that can be heard in the federal system.

“In America, where the stability of Courts and of all departments of government rests upon the approval of the people, it is peculiarly essential that the system for establishing and dispensing Justice be developed to a high point of efficiency and so maintained that the public shall have absolute confidence in the integrity and impartiality of its administration. The future of the Republic, to a great extent, depends upon our maintenance of Justice pure and unsullied. It cannot be so maintained unless the conduct and the motives of the members of our profession are such as to merit the approval of all just men.”4