Norman Spaulding

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.

The article begins by investigating the rise in defence counsel in English criminal trials. Prior to the 18th century, English criminal trials were short, and centred on the defendant’s “natural response to evidence as they heard it for the first time” (223). In an era of discretionary justice being administered by judges and juries, defence

In “The Adversary Judge” Frankel explains how realities of the trial create a “role conflict” between the ideally constructed impartial judge and the realistic adversary judge (Frankel, 1976). Throughout their day people play many roles, these roles are based on the expectations of the people around them and the personality of the person (Frankel, 1976). In particular, judges are expected to play the role of neutrality, intelligence, and patience. Their role is thought to be similar of an “umpire” (Frankel, 1976). It is necessary for them to be objective in order for a just and fair trial to take place. Yet, this ideal role does not occur under the pressure of realities. One reality that pushes away the idea of an “umpire” judge is the heated emotions that occur throughout the trial process. Frankel states” the courtroom explodes as people spring up at several tables shouting objections, usually loudly because they are in some haste and heat to cut off forbidden answers” (Frankel, 1976, p. 472). The attorney’s main goals throughout the trail is to ensure a win for their client leading to competitiveness between both parties. Attorneys do not want to hear they are wrong and always need to be one step ahead of their competitors. This causes the commotion and tense emotions that is usually seen in courts.

Official courtrooms have a noteworthy part to play in the security of civil rights and liberties. While they may not be associated with the usage of these arrangements, they are the overseers of ethical quality in the public and this implies they can adhere to a meaningful boundary between where there is an infringement of a common right or freedom and how this might be cured. Courts should, in this way, be exceptionally vocal in tending to the issue of social liberties and freedoms and they ought not be benevolent with regards to curing the infringement of the same. I likewise believe that the courts have been traded off an awesome arrangement when managing issues identifying with the infringement of social liberties and freedoms. Cases are conveyed to court and they are frequently rejected for absence of adequate confirmation among different justification for expulsion. This is very terrible given the way that the nationals admire these courts to address their issues. I feel like legal foundations should be more radical in managing this issue and they should practice their autonomy too.

Concepts of ‘accessing’ and ‘achieving’ justice and their definitions are often debated and contested. Achieving and accessing justice may be explained through a segregation of groups. For users of the justice system, access refers to the capacity to effectively utilise the justice system, whereas for the general public access to justice refers to the capacity to obtain appropriate information to evaluate the performance of the legal system and ways in which it operates on their behalf (Martin, 2014). These definitions reveal that both users of the courts and the general public should be very much aware of barriers to its access,

The book Ordinary Injustice: How America Holds Court written by Amy Bach reflects upon “ordinary injustice” that members of society fall victim to by the American criminal justice system. In short, the phrase “ordinary injustice” comes from the improper acts that have become second nature to court officials but has yet to be explained and resolved by other actors in the court. It is noted in the text that “ordinary injustice results when a community of legal professionals becomes so accustomed to a pattern of lapses that they can no longer see their role in them” (Bach 2). This recurring pattern has been easy to identify by outsiders but difficult to handle by insiders of the court. Bach supports this idea by making clear that, “proving mistakes, both visible and invisible, [is] very difficult in the criminal justice system, even for those who are insiders” (258).

::The House of Burgesses was split into two groups in 1650: The House of Burgesses and The Governor’s Council.

The criminal trial process has many aspects which aim to balance the rights of victims, offenders and society, including plea bargains and charge negotiations, the ability of defendants to hire legal representation and complete and partial defences. However, these processes do not always succeed in completely achieving justice for victims, offenders and society.

Australian law is greatly influenced by English Law, being the foundation to the Australian Law System that shaped our country to the democratic and unbiased country known today. Australia has adapted the adversary law derived from English Law, it is when two contrasting sides in a case present their evidence and argument in court, this occurs with an unbiased third party overviewing the cases (Hamper et al., 2009). The Lin Family Case was over viewed by two third parties; the Jury and Justice Elizabeth Fullerton, the opposing sides is Mr Xie and the witness is Detective Constable Anthony Ryan who investigated the crime scene (Visitation, 2015). The adversary system ensures a fair verdict of the case put forward thus, a particular side at no time has a unfair upper-hand.

Have you ever seen or wrote about a courtroom? Have you ever seen them in person? If you haven’t there’s a difference between reading and seeing. This paper will be about explaining what takes place inside the courtroom and actually seeing inside a real courtroom inside the movie “Real Justice”. It will be giving illustration of a discretion, courtroom workgroup, and Assembly line of Justice.

On observing the District Court a number of distinctions from the Local Courts were immediately made apparent. Without going in to detail about the actual structure of the courts, they seemed to fit more closely with the traditional schema of a typical courtroom. In particular the larger courtrooms with more facilities combined with the barristers and magistrates wearing their wig and robes seemed to instantly uphold the ideology of justice. It is interesting to note how appearances can automatically provide an impression that justice will be upheld. The

Don Norman highlights the idea about the three levels of human intersections related to how human perceives beauty. He is focusing on the idea of how emotion and beauty are strongly bond. The three levels are visceral, behavioral, and reflective which they establish how emotion changes when we perceive beauty in different ways. For examples, in visceral level, we subconsciously dislike things such as loud sound or bitter taste. In behavioral level, we subconsciously like things that make us feel safe and comfortable. In reflective level, we like things that are fancy and help us get attention. In the end, Don Norman makes a statement that beautiful things tend to work better. However, I am not completely agree with his perspective. To some

“Witness for the Prosecution” superbly demonstrated a realist view of the operating procedures in a courtroom. The actors within the courtroom were easy to identify, and the steps transitioned smoothly from the arrest to the reading of the verdict. The murder trial of Leonard Vole provided realistic insight into how laws on the books are used in courtroom proceedings. With the inferior elements noted, the superior element of the court system in “Witness

According to Christie’s articles, he stated how the conflict in society can have negative impact in industrialized societies and how legal systems steals the disputes from disputants rather than parties involved. He argues that court procedures have taken away the rights of victims to participate in their own crime and lawyers have become more involved in the outcomes of court proceedings, making courthouse complex and difficult to negotiate. Christie offered ways to reduce the conflict in society so that victims or the parties can become more involved.

In the beginning of 17th century, Town Council established hotel, but soon it was liquidated as expenses were greater than incomes. [ 6, pgs.116-117]