The Court System In The United States And Across The Globe

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.

U.S Courts of appeal do not decide “guilt”or“fault”, listen to witnesses, do not have a jury, and do not attempt to “find out the facts. They do however, see if there were legal issues made and review the courts records. They also listen to both lawyers working on the case. All states have supreme courts, although only 39 have intermediate appellate courts”. (Schmalleger,2009)

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..

Judges are a lot like police officers in that they hold a great amount of discretionary power in their courtrooms and their judgments. Judges are required to ensure that the accused is given a fair trial, while also ensuring that the best interest of the public is maintained. There is a great amount of pressure placed on judges today with excessive case loads and pressures from the media and other outside sources.

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.

These are trained, unpaid members of the public within their local community. They work part time (26 days a year). On the other hand, juries are also unpaid people but it is their duty to fulfill the job. Magistrates deal with summary offence such as theft, nuisance and motor offending etc. however juries work in the crown court and they decide the facts about the case they are listening whereas a magistrate will pay attention to the law. Juries sit in a panel of 12 and decide if the verdict is guilty or not whereas magistrates sit in a panel of 3 and decide the law and give an appropriate

Many years ago, before courts existed matters was handled in a privately or informally. This often led to violence and unjust treatment of innocent people. During the rise of the Greek City States and the Roman Empire law enforcement became a public affair instead of private. (Siegel, Schmalleger, & Worral, 2011). Along with this movement became formalized courts and other criminal justice institutions. This allowed for law enforcement matters to be handled in a more civilized manner for resolving human conflict.

My observation discovered the significant difference between the lower courts and upper courts in relations to court operations and process – namely the two tiers of justice. An overwhelming volume of cases were heard and dealt at the Local Court with expeditious environment. The empirical research also shows that on average, the time per matter dealt is four minutes and thirteen seconds, with more than half of matters being dealt less than two minutes. A stark contrast in length was observed at the Supreme Court where an atmosphere of slow pace,

Over the last 224 years, the US court system has been continually evolving. At the heart of these changes, is the belief that the Constitution establishes basic practices that must be followed at all times. This has led to the development of a legal structure that is based on case precedent and oversight (which are augmented with constitutional ideas). The combination of these factors has meant that the judicial branch is continually transforming. To fully understand the way this is taking place requires examining the dual court system and how this compares to other countries. Together, these different elements will highlight the way the US judicial system has developed in comparison with other regions of the world. (Couser, 1992, pp. 14 29)

For this criteria I will be producing a written evaluation of the effectiveness of magistrates and juries in the administration of justice in the English legal system.

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

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

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.

The courts of the United Kingdom are institutions there are aim justice to all and deliver fair and equal trails. Although ‘fair and equal’ are not always true to some cases along with ‘justice to all’. Never the less either convicting someone for unlawful activity or resolving a civil dispute, the British legal system employs a variety of courts in its application of the law. It much reminds me of my home country the United States the different level of courts I mean. Magistrates courts have the jurisdiction to try minor offences then for more serious offences are referred to the Crown courts. There are also appellate courts, which include the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court; formally known as the House of Lords. To