Transformation of Judiciary System

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.

Nevertheless, some critics argue that the judidicary, some critics argue that the judiciary are the final arbiters of what is meant by the principle of separation of powers, which therefore provides the judiciary with subordinate levels of power. Moreover Chief Justice Hughes concluding that the ‘Constitution is what the judges say it is’ due to ability to interpret the constitution. In America, although Congress may new laws affecting courts, ultimately judges decide.

Judicial independence is based on the freedom of the judiciary from the interference by the two by the two other branches of government: the executive and legislature, in its activities, as well as freedom from pressure exerted by the media or public opinion. Judicial neutrality is the absence of bias in the judiciary for example; religious, social, gender, political or racial bias. UK judges are generally seen to possess both independent and neutral qualities. They are independent and neutral to a large extent as the Constitutional Reform Act in 2005 has increased their independence and existing measures such as security of their job and salary, as well as sub judice rule, the growth of judicial review and increased European influence maintains existing independence. Neutrality is increasing the judiciary as its social representation is improving and the biased attitudes of judges towards national security have been changing. However independence and neutrality is still limited as there have been biased judgements against certain social groups, biased judgments in favour of national

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.

These extreme cases of judicial misconduct are rare; but when they happen they force us to think critically about our judicial system and the important role it plays in our society. When it comes to preventing abuses

Judicial Independence is fundamental to democracy, it serves as a guarantor of the rule of law and separation of power . However, nothing is perfect. There is some defect regarding to the judicial independence and solution must be made to curb the weakness.

American criminal justice system seems like a perfectly set up rule which is equal to everyone, but it can be biased. According to the article, ‘The New Jim Crow’, many of these indictments seem unfair against certain races. Also, on the documentary about Steven Avery we watched during our first week of class, emphasized the point that the criminal justice system or the law itself can be manipulated by people who are experts. But the criticism on the wrong judgment cannot be removed completely, since the judges and the lawyers are humans too. Even though they did not have any intent to manipulate or put more charges on certain defendant, they can still make wrong decisions. As people are tried on the court run by other people, it is completely normal to make wrong decisions, or to have someone who tries to manipulate the problems. This kind of things happen everywhere, not only in the criminal justice system. Of course, the purification movement against corruption should be developed inside of the

This leads to “inevitable bias being introduced into our political and legal cultures” (Dyzenhaus, Moreau, and Ripstein 544). Because these judges are coming from similar backgrounds, they share perspectives that consequently lead to the suppression of those whose interests are not “adequately recognized or supported by the dominant, mainstream ideologies” (Dyzenhaus, Moreau, and Ripstein 544). It is not hard to understand why some fear a Charter that is so hard to change is violating the principles of democracy. Judges, in no sense, are in the position of moral authority nor are they experts in areas typically concerned with by the government (Dyzenhaus, Moreau, and Ripstein 543). The judiciary is the epitome of contrasting notions when it comes to self-governing, the heart of democracy. Allowing unelected judges to overrule decisions of legislators is problematic for all of society and represents the abandonment of self-government (Dyzenhaus, Moreau, and Ripstein 541).

While independence of the courts was a factor in achieving balance of power among the governmental branches, Hamilton additionally states that the judicial branch is the weakest and “least dangerous” branch unless, in its independence, it is able to act. “The judiciary... has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution.... It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.” The courts are thus enabled only by the executive branch to enforce decisions and are explicitly forbid to interpret laws founded on its views. With only the power to make judgments and no power to act, the judicial branch could not contribute to an equal balance of power among the three branches.

It is not without questionable doubt that the United States judiciary branch is in need of a major political reform in terms of the injustice that has become so common within the system. The main purpose of the judicial system is to rightfully resolve disagreements according to law. In 1988, Ronald Kitchen was wrongfully convicted for committing five murders, after serving nearly 21 years in prison in which 13 of them on death row he was released. There was an insufficient amount of evidence against him, however, it was the tortures that he endured for almost two days that coerced false confessions from Kitchen to pleading guilty to the murders. The justice system has lost its true purpose of finding justice for whoever is truly at fault. Instead of truth-seeking, court cases have become more about self-interest and winning. Majority of cases do not even reach trial, before then the guilty are let go free or let off easy while the innocent take guilty pleas in fear of risking loosing at trial. Today’s trials just involve two sides in continuous debate that end in the hope for the judge and jury to be able to emerge the truth. Modern judiciary branch has become so accustomed to the idea that court is a neutral course and the judges

Tarr, G. A. (2014). Judicial Process and Judicial Policymaking, 6th Edition. [MBS Direct]. Retrieved from

The problem of judicial corruption in United States is immense. The Sixth Amendment in the United States Bill of Rights refers to the right to a speedy, fair and public trial. Unfortunately, our judicial system does not always maintain these rights. The United States judicial system is very corrupt and most of our country’s citizens do not know how corrupt it actually is. When thinking about the judicial system, words that come to mind are justice, morality, and fairness. Sadly, these words are not accurate descriptions of this system. Correct depictions of today’s judicial system are corruption, rigged courts, extortion, and phony trials. Our legal system does not bring truth or justice to our courtrooms. Overcoming this corruption is not

In this assignment I will critically analyse the problematic origins of the South African common law and the capacity of the supreme Constitution to remedy said origins. This will be discussed by referring to the history of colonialism and its impact on the formation of common law practices, the development of common law in terms of the constitution, the opposing approaches made by different courts regarding the same cases and as a final point I will discuss the role of legal culture in the transformation of common law.

Instances of such bias and corruption have often surfaced in the process appointment of judges of High Court and Supreme Court. That is the reason that today there is a nationwide outcry today for the right to the information into the system of judicial appointment. The system of appointment of judges has always been an area of controversy and confusion. Several attempts have been made to arrive at position which will strike the right balance between separation of power and right to information which have yet proven to be unsuccessful. The only hope of having a balanced system via NJAC Act was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional and void whilst reviving the old system of electing Chief Justices of High Court and Supreme Court

The creation of a supreme law constitution enforced by the judiciary would enhance the judiciary’s present role and powers and its ability to act as a check on the other branches of government. This can be seen through the idea of a supreme law constitution, compared with New Zealand’s current constitution, the present nature and extent of the New Zealand judiciary’s role and power to check the other branches; and the role and powers that the judiciary would have under a supreme law constitution, and how this would change its ability to check the other branches of government.