Societies media as we know it has altered the reality of The United States law and its courts, causing the real world to become more of a blur. Media has given people somewhat of a basic aspect of the law and how it works, but little do people know what television shows such as Bones, CSI, Law and Order, Judge Judy, and etc., has inaccurate ruling of the laws and procedures. Giving a shrouded haze over our eyes in believing that the law system takes merely minutes to process. People need to understand that it is not all about the drama and the intensity of the scene, but knowledge and skills it takes for a proper court to function. Individuals need realize that our Law, which derives from our infamous constitution, is what protects and regulates not only our lives, but also everything that is justice around us. Within this paper I will be talking about three major points that I believe that are important to the readers mind. First, is to announce my views of the distortion that media has created for humanity to be less educated of the actual law and court system. Second, is to inform the readers of how law works in the real world and significant differences between the real law and what media has perceived law to look like. With readers both informed of the real and non-real sides of the law, I will lastly give a brief story of my own experience of going to court. The law is here to protect our rights and freedom, yet somehow media has create a great amount profit in
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
Our society for the most part has a set of written laws by which it operates under. Laws govern our behavior in society and list punishments by which individuals that break them will be prosecuted and sentenced. Our criminal justice system is essential made up of three major intuitions which see a case from the beginning and through the trial and finally to the punishment phase ("How Does the Criminal Justice System Work?," 2014). Our society needs laws and punishment for those who violet the laws otherwise we would live in a world of chaos. In this paper we will examine various aspects of the criminal process from arrest through sentencing and appeal.
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
The Justice System is a topic that has stirred up a lot of controversy throughout time. Is it fair or is it not? Throughout hundreds of years, people have been treated justly and unjustly by this system. In this paper, I will only be discussing my opinion on America’s justice system. However, there are many other Justice Systems that I will not get to discuss. America’s Justice System is made up of 3 parts. The Law Enforcement, the Adjudication, and the Correction. The Justice System was created to control crime and punish those who commit illegal actions. Without this system, our country would crumble and fall. Although it has been unfair on numerous occasions, we still should respect the law.
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.
[The United States, is it a country of deviant lawbreakers? Or is it a country of too many laws? There were more than 12 million arrests in 2011, the question of how to adjudicate these cases has become an issue for the federal, state and local courts across the country. The overcrowding of our court dockets has become a major problem for court administrators working in every courthouse in the United States. Why the courts are so overcrowded, and how the court administrators, judges, and attorneys deal with overcrowding will be the focus of this paper.
Throughout one’s life many are prone to being in one of America’s many courtrooms at least once in their life. Whether it is for a parking ticket, a petty larceny charge, or simply jury duty most citizens have been in a courtroom once or twice. However, it is rare that one knows the many steps and processes that take place when a crime has been convicted. There is an excess number of elements that are introduced and just to name a few it all starts with the occurrence of the crime, then follows the arrest, proceeded by an arraignment, bail hearing and any more steps before finally reaching the final verdict that lands one with guilt or innocence (Neubrauer, Fadella 2013). Based on the laws in place by the United States and the Constitution one must be able to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is doubt at all in the jurors minds, they cannot convict the individual of being guilty and lately this has created a lot of controversy in the United States with many cases being tried. For example, the Casey Anthony case that took place in Florida was one of the most recent states where Common Law and the Constitution were unable to be reconcilable to prove one’s guilt.
Criminal justice has garnered massive national attention in the past few years in America. Multiple police shootings, the Black Lives Matter movement, and other hot-button issues have occupied the media on a daily basis. This attention has led many Americans to question the integrity and efficacy of the government institution that was designed to uphold the law and seek justice for its people. However, this system is severely damaged and its definition of justice has been perverted and contorted beyond recognition, resulting in unfair and discriminatory treatment of the people it has been sworn to protect.
Bogira paints a portrait of some of the more personal and nuanced day-to-day activities that go into courtroom behavior and decision making. Describe some of the often overlooked aspects of day-to-day court operations (i.e., judges background, public pressures, defense attorney and prosecutorial ambitions, etc.) and how they may affect court outcomes for defendants. Bogira paints a portrait of the real side of the law and after reading Courtroom 302 I’m applauded at the things I’ve read. Bogira’s showed a different side to prosecutors, detectives, and judges detailing the little to no interest they had in righting the wrongs caused by the court.
This paper will cover topics such as; what a court is and what the purpose of the court is. This paper will define the dual court system. In addition this paper will describe the role that early legal codes, the common law and the precedent played in the development of courts. And lastly this paper will identify the role of the courts in the criminal justice system today.
When looking at the other element of the functionality of law in our court systems, the law in action, one must understand that this is literary the way the actors in the courtroom interpret the letter of the law. These players in the court room are the judges, lawyers, the defendant, and victims (Neubauer and Fradella, 2009). The law in action can be very confusing to the average person because of the many different interpolations that can come from so many different actors in the court system.
In the electronic world that we live in, every aspect of life can be broadcast across the country in seconds. This aspect is even more realistic when cameras are front and center in American courtrooms. Each morning and afternoon we turn on the television, reality television takes over and civil lawsuits or divorces are being broadcast on shows such as the Judge Judy Show, Judge Brown Show, Judge Greg Mathis Show or Divorce Court. Many people, young and old, are exposed to these reality shows believing what they see is the “real” criminal justice system at
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
In the american court room there are several people involved. Some of the most important and lawful figures include: the judge, who is the main authority and the one responsible for justice. The prosecuting attorney, responsible for presenting the case against the defendant. The defense counsel, who is in
The juries who are part of a murder trial, in my opinion, should be taken more seriously with regards to keeping them safe than a trial with a defendant that has a misdemeanor. Jurors who are qualified to attend a death penalty trial, for example, are more likely to prosecute a defendant and therefore have a greater chance for publicity once the criminal has left the correctional facility ("Media Influence in Capital Cases, " 2016).
The principle of open justice is a vital characteristic of the court system. Lord Atkinson in Scott v Scott noted that public trials are ‘the best security for the pure, impartial, and efficient administration of justice, the best means of winning for it public confidence.’ Similarly, Gibbs J in Russell asserted that this principles ensures ‘the proceedings of every court are fully exposed to public and professional scrutiny, without which abuses may flourish undetected’. It follows that the media ordinarily has a right to report on Court proceedings. This entitlement has been described as a fundamental necessity ‘given that ‘few members of the public have the time, or the inclination, to attend courts.’. Nevertheless, the law has