murder case

In the State of Texas, we have a rather odd way of selecting which judges will and will not be able to have a job in the State of Texas. The way we select them is the same way that we decide who is going to be the governor of the State of Texas, we elected them. There are many flaws with choosing election as the way of picking who will be judges. Some of the flaws are that there will possibly be a lack of minority chosen, voters tend to know little to none information about the local election let alone the candidates up for judges, and finally people contributing to campaigns. While few people know that this how we elected judges in Texas, but even fewer realize the consequences the will continue to pile up if we do not do something to put an end to this ludicrous way of choosing an influential position of office.

In this chapter, the question of if judicial independence is being undermined is asked. Attacks upon activist judges is a recurring theme in the United States. Various judges are attacked across the state for the decisions they make. In an adversary system, a judge’s decision often fails to find favor with the losing party. These losing parties normally label the judge as and “activist”. This means that the judge had made an unpopular opinion. There has been many examples of judges being subject to the attacks such as when Justice Penny White was voted off the bench because she voted in a death penalty case to grant the defendant more leeway. These attacks on judges can have a harsh impact on the judicial independence. The American Judicature

There are times when areas of government are operating improperly and the judiciary must step in to be able to return it to order. These instances are often met with controversy as people are dismayed by the branch overstepping its traditional boundaries. Despite this discomfort, it is always better that constitutionality and order be reinstated than people gain comfort in their unlawful actions and decisions. Examples of these instances of judges stepping forward to get these areas back on the correct path include the Boston busing situation and the reforms in the Oakland Police Department.

The judge selection process in the USA today differs from one state to the other. Each state has its defined procedures to select and dismiss a judge from service. However, some of the States share the guidelines in choosing judges. Another common thing in the selection process is that all judges serve for a period of time upon which one is supposed to be elected to serve in the judiciary for another term. In this paper, the main focus is the selection process of the judge in Tennessee State. It also evaluates the similarities and differences between Tennessee State selection processes against Texas State.

Proponents of Judicial Elections argue that electing judges at a state level allows the judges to reconnect with the people in a closer way and to be more sensitive towards public opinion. However, the Judiciary system, unlike its other two counterparts, was not created to be a democratic institution. Instead, it was built to examine whether the government or the people are acting in accordance to law. Therefore, I oppose Judicial Elections for several reasons. One, it introduces partisanship to a supposedly impartial system and two, it risks disrupting the initial purpose of the Judiciary System which is to counterbalance the steps taken by the Congress and the Executive branch with the law.

The United States president, Barack Obama, nominated a longtime federal judge Merrick Garland to take the position of the Supreme Court and replace the former justice, Antonin Scalia. Merrick Garland’s past decisions related to different issues had made him the talk of the town. Although Garland has a 19 year record on the U.S. court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, this does not lend him to a fast evaluation (Mcshane).

Since the founding of the American Democracy, partisanship has always been a major problem when it comes to political aspects of the law. The Constitution was designed to implement laws into our country that would make our governing body run smoother with fewer conflicts. However, when dealing with Democracy based on the “people’s word” it is hard to avoid such conflicts. Since each citizen in our country has the right to freedom of speech and thought, the interpretation of various parts of the Constitution have become heavily analyzed when dealing with cases of various crimes that happen in the United States. Each judge on the Supreme Court is entitled to his or her own political ideology so it is a constant debate as to whether a judge has biases on a particular issue based on political views. These biases weave through our justice system creating a disarray of views and arguments that always reflect back on the judges and their presentation, or lack their of, of American ways.

Judicial Selection: Part I. Reform: Are Campaign Contributions Compromising the Intendent Judiciary is an article by Adam Skaggs and You May Know the Law but I Own the Judge: Why Congress Can and Should Get Involved in State Judicial Election Reform, is an article by Jonathan Berman are the two articles are critiqued. They are both about monetary funds that are donated to campaign funds of judiciary election candidates. They both look at how large amounts of funds are donated by different entities for many different reasons. Most being for self-gain which lead to corruption in the system

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 book Courtroom 302 by Steve Bogira is about one year in one courtroom in Chicago’s Cook County Criminal Courthouse. The Cook County Courthouse is the busiest felony courthouse in the country. In the book, we are given a behind-the-scenes look into the daily cases that are dealt with every day and into the highest profile case of the year. Bogira gives great insight into how the ethics of the criminal justice system are compromised and often ignored as justice is handed out swiftly and mindlessly.

On March 16, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to take Associate Justice Scalia’s seat. The Chicago native graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School and worked as a federal prosecutor for the U.S. Department of Justice. He played the lead role in the investigation and prosecution of the Oklahoma City bombers. Mr. Garland is not as conservative as former Associate Justice Scalia, he is more of a moderate. Also Mr. Scalia was well known for his argumentative style. This was illustrated quite clearly in his frequent and angry dissents of his colleague’s majority opinion. Conversely Mr. Garland works to unite and mold opinions to be unanimous. In his nineteen years on the United States Court of Appeals, he has only penned sixteen dissents. A former law clerk for Mr. Garland stated “From an early point in his tenure in the D.C. Circuit, Judge Garland has demonstrated an uncommon ability to identify common ground among his fellow judges, that he manages to do so without in any way sacrificing his core judicial principles is truly remarkable”

The case Marbury vs. Madison led to the most important decision the US Supreme Court has ever made. The parties, William Marbury, appointed Justice of Peace under the Judiciary Act of 1801 by John Adams the former US president, and James Madison, Thomas Jefferson’s Secretary of State at the time, had conflicting interests concerning William Marbury’s right to office. Madison refused to grant Marbury his appointment. This led to Marbury ordering the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus, obliging Marbury to grant his commission. Marbury’s main argument was that the Judiciary Act of 1789 granted the power to issue former to the Supreme Court. By refusing the appointment, Marbury claims, is Madison violating his legal rights to obtain the commission. The Court’s ruling in this case, delivered by Mr. Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803, had an important impact on the establishment of judicial review. But was the Court’s decision justified?

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

Give a real life example of prosecutor misconduct and indicate briefly how/if that prosecutor was punished?

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