The American Court System And Criminal Justice System

The speaker argues that the criminal justice system in America treats you better if you're rich and guilty than if you're poor and innocent. Do you agree? Why or why not?

Courts are established social, political, and judicial institutions necessary for the manifestation of justice and the maintenance of law and order. The courts are part of the judicial branch of government, as outlined in Article III of the United States Constitution. Courts are the arenas in which the law is tried and applied. Judges are the presiding officers of the court. The United States Supreme Court is the most fundamental court because has "the authority to decide the constitutionality of federal laws and resolve other disputes over them," (United States Courts, 2012). This is true even though even though the court does not expressly enforce that law; enforcement is the province of the executive branch.

The courts play a huge role in the criminal justice system. The dual court system of the United States (U.S.) was established through the U.S. constitution. The court systems have a multiple purposes and elements of court. Federal and state court system is what makes up the dual court system of the U.S. Today the U.S. court system is what it is today because of previous legal codes, common law, and the precedent it played in the past. Making the U.S. court system a vital role in the criminal justice system..

In what ways is the indigenous justice paradigm in conflict with the principles of the traditional, adversarial American criminal justice system? In what ways do the principles of Native American justice complement more mainstream correctional initiatives?

“The court finds you guilty on all accounts. You are sentenced to 35 years in federal prison. Court dismissed.” If only justice in America was the same as a hollywood movie, where, in the end, each and every person put on trial receives a true and just verdict. It would be nice if America’s justice system was designed so that “you couldn’t be the next victim of corruption - innocent and sent to prison, or strapped to a table and put to death; or robbed of your life savings by American lawyers” (Sachs, America’s Corrupt Legal). Welcome to the new America, where all it takes is pockets as deep as the Pacific Ocean to be innocent and poverty to be found guilty, thrown in jail, and not given a second thought. Although America often prides itself on its just ways of governing and dealing with potential criminals, the justice system is often corrupted because of social issues, ethical issues, corrupt officials, and control of the press.

Since the policy was enacted in the early 1990s, three strikes laws have been one of the most controversial issues facing the American criminal justice system. In general, advocates believe that locking up criminals will protect society. Critics believe that three-strike policy can only be effective with offenders that are on their last strikes (Worrall, 2008). However, other critics explain how three-strike laws don’t significantly reduce crime because most criminals mature out of the criminal lifestyle (Worrall, 2004).

Across the United States, city and county governments seek to gain revenue through the illegitimate jailing of indigent defendants who cannot afford to pay the large and cumbersome fines that accompany committing (seemingly petty) crimes— such as missing court dates, a requirement for classes such as anger management, the list goes on. Indeed, the practice of debtor’s prison has long been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court within the United States, yet a contemporary form of debtor’s prison has begun to take form which targets vulnerable populations. When an individual commits a crime, they are to be justly punished. If this punishment consists of a fine, that fine is expected to be paid accordingly; if the fined individual simply does not have the time or money to pay these steep fines, however, they are sent to jail indefinitely. This rise of financial burden imposed upon the liberty of low income citizens through the fining, issuing of fees, and jail time sanctioned by the criminal justice system has resulted in new, illegitimate, and ostensibly unconstitutional forms of debtor’s prisons that permeate contemporary U.S. society. Jeopardizing the liberty of vulnerable populations, based upon material inequality and extraction of necessary resources, only does one thing within a society: continue the cycle of poverty and increase the poor’s dependence upon the rich for their liberty, equality and most importantly, survival.

In the criminal justice system there is very rarely a single linchpin that can be pointed to and held responsible for the failure to convict a seemingly guilty person. This reigns true for the very public prosecutions of both Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman. In the eyes of a vast majority of the public, fueled by media spectacle and opinion, Anthony and Zimmerman were guilty even before they ever saw the inside of a courtroom. There simply could be no other answer. The public was subsequently outraged when, after what seemed to be trials of certainty, juries acquitted each. The public sought to find someone, or something to blame. The verdict could not be accepted and many turned their focus to condemn the workings of the criminal

The population of offenders in correctional institutions in the United States is at an alarming amount, and it doesn’t have to be. Each year 7 million offenders are absorbed and expelled from correctional institutions and jails, placing a heavy burden on the criminal justice system (Morgan, 2011). Many of these offenders will recidivate, and with rates that are estimated at 70%, means 4.9 million will eventually return to the criminal justice system, creating a vicious cycle of arrest, re-arrest, and imprisonment (Morgan, 2011). Among this population are offenders with mental illnesses that need to be addressed, or specialized care that needs to be administered. Without the support of mental health programs such as mental health court,

Crime takes place all the time and it is America’s duty to ensure that these criminals are properly punished for their wrongdoings. With rehabilitation, one can not ensure that if given a second chance the criminal will not offend again. We need to confront crime with a proper punishment and that is where retribution comes in. With retribution society appears more secure and crimes of violence decrease. Since it is essential to control violence in society, retribution is essential. Retribution should undoubtedly be favored over rehabilitation in America’s criminal justice system because it enforces the law and ensures justice. Newman as a punishment for crime , “poor results Foundation work for other agencies to tackle crime.” Death leads to the front. Murder they are . Also open to allow them to better everyday in addition, the complex moral crime.

The criminal justice system is the set of agencies and processes established by governments to control crime and impose penalties on those who violate laws. The system is not one single criminal justice system in the United States but nevertheless many similar, individual systems. How every particular system works in each area depends on who is in charge of the city, county, state, or federal. Different authorities have different laws, agencies, and ways of managing criminal justice processes. There are two primary systems which are, state, criminal justice systems handle crimes committed within their state boundaries and the federal, criminal justice system handles crimes committed on federal property or in more than one state. Most criminal

Justice is the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness. If I was the leader of a society, I would create a system of justice that would ensure fairness and discourage crime. There would be some changes in my system of justice compared to the way we run our justice system today in the United States. There would be a few laws that I would change to impact the government and citizens for the better. These changes would discourage crime, and be fair to everyone at the same time.

The United States criminal justice system has failed to rehabilitate criminals. Even after being penalized for their crimes, prisoners continue to commit crimes without learning that what they did was wrong from being incarcerated and are sent back to prison. Jails are set up to aid those imprisoned by helping them obtain skills that will hopefully reduce future incidences and allow them to act like the citizens they should be. However, punishing criminals is not as productive as many think it is. This is shown by the increased imprisonment rate from 250,000 in 1976 to almost 2 million by 2003 (Lynch 26, 49). Instead of learning how to work towards handling their problems, inmates are expected to learn from their mistakes by being isolated from society and even sometimes from human contact. Since the prisoners are unable to learn from their delinquencies after doing time in prison, many recommit offenses and find themselves back in jail. Prisons should become more education based, to achieve this goal the overall costs of prisons has to decrees. According to Shadd Maruna, director of the Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice for Queen’s Law, “of the more than 100,000 released from prison each year, 70 percent will return to prison.” The re-incarceration is mainly due to the incapability of these convicts to re-adapt into society. After being detached from the real world, it is problematic to adjust to changes, depending on how long the prisoners were

Garland argues that a new predicament has occurred over the last 30 years within the criminal justice system that encompasses one of the six adaptive responses. One of the six is believed to effect the various implications for administrative and political actions.

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.