The Medi A Negative Image Of Lawyers And Judges Essay

In Business Insider article “This is Why Juries Shouldn’t Decide Court Cases” Erin Fuchs argues that court cases in the US shouldn’t be resolved by Juries. Erin Fuchs is completely correct. Cases should not be solved by bias and inexperienced and unwillingness people in law. In the article Professor Peter Van Koppen compared jurors to unequipped people acting as your doctors. In his 2009 essay it states “you wouldn’t want a panel of lay people acting as doctors.” This comparison makes a lot of sense. If you were a “criminal” and you had a case that meant life or death, would you want some bias and not prepared random people off the streets choosing if you are going to die or live? Some horrible criminals get big breaks because some unprepared

Today, in the United States, most citizens are able to appreciate the fair, balanced legal system that is in place. The country suffered many failures before establishing the United States Constitution, and later the Bill of Rights, which became the foundation of the country’s legal system and protection of the citizens’ rights (American Sentinel University). Citizens may take their right to trial or their right to due process for granted, without realizing how life was before these rights were recognized and established. Until the Constitution in 1787, the justice system was not permanent and not quite clear, causing unfair and unjust treatment. Of course, no system can be perfect, but it is possible to discover options that suit the wants

This distorted perception leads jurors to believe that cases are supposed to be handled the same way they view it on

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.

The United States judicial branch to the general American public can seem insulated from politics, because of their adversarial system, that does not allow judges to choose their cases. The judicial branch unlike, their two counterparts, the legislative and executive at large rely on the respect of the American people and the heads of the two other branches. In appointing members of the federal judiciary, Presidents appoint members who resemble their political ideologies and their likelihood of confirmation in the Senate, the Senate confirms these members based on their performance on the litmus test and Senatorial courtesy. Courts, specifically the Supreme Court, make decisions based on the Constitution, but the legislative branch has the

Through my research on this critical thinking paper I have learned that the quality of the defendant’s defense lawyer is perhaps the single

In the State of Wisconsin with the trial of Jamie Covington we found him guilty of first degree murder. Jamie ment to shoot Dallas because dallas was always above him and better. Dallas forgot his keys one evening and he went through the window because he forgot his keys, he claims that he had gone through the window before and he didn't think anything would happen. This is why everyone is being questions to see if he was guilty or no, which he is guilty. During this case the lawyers questioned many people, but their stories weren't adding up. They talked to Ronnie Cecop, Casey Kramer, and Lane Smith they were on the defence side. Then Morgan Dexter, Blair Allen, and Jamie Covington where the prosecution. Most of the people on the prosecution side were very nervous, didn't know some answers, but on the other side the people on the defence side knew every question and didn't seem nervous. All of these people had their strengths and weaknesses.

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).

Justice. It is something that everyone wants, something that we strive for, even something that sparks. However, when we think of lawyers, we think of superheroes with an expensive education, walking into the courtroom and serving up justice. What no one thinks of is the person that helped the lawyer get there, the paralegal that prepares the necessary documents, the paralegal that makes sure his or her attorney is at the right place at the right time. A paralegal is crucial and in some cases vital to our justice system yet they are so often over looked.

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

As stated,”They tend to decide based on legal nuances and subtler understandings of the law than would ever occur to the average juror.”()If i were to choose a bench trial it would be difficult to convince the judge that i had no intention in killing the store clerk. A judge is more experienced with cases as the one i was involved in therefore they are with knowledge and have a better understanding in the criminal laws. Where as the juries are not as experienced and go by the defendants story. As a result, one of the most important factors are the juries passion. As stated,”So a particularly compelling story about how a victim suffered injury or harm at the hands of the defendant can lead to a much heftier award than a dispassionate judge would grant.”() Basically it means that the jury are all different people with different beliefs and would most likely vote for the most reasonable

Within the book, Dershowitz poses the question of whether prosecutors and defense attorneys are advocates for justice, or only for their clients. The reason for lawyers choosing a client can

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

that many may not be able to pay with cash and may have to take up a

In today’s society we see all kinds of unfair cases coming in and out if the courtroom. People who have enough money to go hire a top of the line lawyer to protect them from being accounted guilty. All the while in the poor community people struggle to survive just to pay their rent, and when they commit a crime it’s hard for them to afford a top of the line lawyers. Every day you turn on the TV or the radio and hear about these celebrities that constantly get in trouble for drugs, guns, and fighting but yet when the judge sentences them it’s like they get a smack on the hand or receive the minimum sentence available. This even happens in a