Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The role and function of the judge
Role of judges in the court system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The role and function of the judge
A judge is an official appointed to decide cases in the court of law. A judge rules on questions of law, acts as a referee between the litigating parties and renders decisions in legal disputes. The judge presides over the trial from a bench on an elevated platform. Judges have five task. The first is to preside over the proceedings and see that order is maintained. The second is to determine that any evidence the parties would like to use is illegal. Third, the judge must give the jury instructions about law that applies to the case and the standards. Fourth, in bench trials, the judge must also determine the facts and decide the case. The fifth is to sentence convicted criminals. A judge performs a variety of tasks inside and outside the courtroom. In the courtroom, a …show more content…
Judges work in local, state, and federal courts and are appointed or elected. Judges must do a lot of reading and researching. They must research laws and case histories relevant to the cases before them and they must stay current on changes to the law. They also must read and evaluate evidence motions and records specific to the cases they are hearing. They enforce the rules of the court and hear arguments from attorneys, receive and review evidence and listen to the witness testimony. In jury trials, the judge instructs the jury on relevant law and how to consider the evidence. If the jury finds the defendant guilty, the judge will issue a sentence that may include a fine, jail time or both. In criminal court, judges must determine the guilt or innocence of criminal defendants and impose sentences on defendants found guilty. In civil cases, a judge may determine liability or damages. In chambers, the judge supervises the work of law clerks and other court staff, meets with attorneys to discuss cases and encourage settlement, and establishes court rules and
The American Jury system has been around for quite some time. It was the original idea that the framers of the constitution had wanted to have implemented as a means of trying people for their illegal acts, or for civil disputes. The jury system has stood the test of time as being very effective and useful for the justice system. Now it has come into question as to if the jury system is still the best method for trials. In the justice system there are two forms of trials, one being the standard jury trial, where 12 random members of society come together to decide the outcome of something. The other option would be to have a bench trial. In a bench trial, the judge is the only one deciding the fate of the accused. While both methods are viable
For criminal trials, judges must inform the jury to the best of their ability on relevant laws and offer proper guidance. Hence resulting in a consistent application of the criminal law where justice is
They weigh the evidence and apply the law. In the court system, criminal law is interpreted by a jury who are seen as expressing the sense of justice of ordinary men and women. Juries date back to the Middle Ages in England, and while membership, role, and importance have changed throughout the ages, they were part of the system of England’s Common Law. The purpose of the jury system was to ensure the civil rights of the ordinary citizen. It is important to remember that at the time, ordinary people had few rights.
The judges that are a part of this group has many different roles, some of which are to issues warrants, making a determination of probable cause in evidence, denying or granting bail to offenders, overseeing trials, making rulings on different motions and even overseeing hearings. The prosecuting attorney is the one who will represent that state in c...
A jury is defined as “a body of persons legally selected and sworn to inquire into any matter of fact and to give their verdict according to the evidence” by Webster(2004). It differs from a bench trial, in which a judge or panel of judges makes all decisions. Nowadays the jury system is very popular in almost all of the common law legal systems, so that people of those countries can make sure that the case would not be judged only by one’s personal willing or prejudice.
Now, the district court system is the beginning step of the judicial system. A good amount of the case handled by the district court system is either criminal or civil trial cases. According to Roger Miller, “trial courts that have general jurisdiction as to the subject matter may be called county, district, superior, or circuit courts.” The majority of their cases are to be handled in-county first before proceeding further through the court system. Just as businesses and organizations have a chain-of-command or protocol system the government has the
They are the impartial third-party whose responsibility is to deliver a verdict for the accused based on the evidence presented during trial. They balance the rights of society to a great extent as members of the community are involved. This links the legal system with the community and ensures that the system is operating fairly and reflecting the standards and values of society. A trial by jury also ensures the victim’s rights to a fair trial. However, they do not balance the rights of the offender as they can be biased or not under. In the News.com.au article ‘Judge or jury? Your life depends on this decision’ (14 November 2013), Ian Lloyd, QC, revealed that “juries are swayed by many different factors.” These factors include race, ethnicity, physical appearance and religious beliefs. A recent study also found that juries are influenced by where the accused sits in the courtroom. They found that a jury is most likely to give a “guilty” verdict if the accused sits behind a glass dock (ABC News, 5 November 2014). Juries also tend to be influenced by their emotions; hence preventing them from having an objective view. According to the Sydney Morning Herald article ‘Court verdicts: More found innocent if no jury involved’ (23 November 2013), 55.4 per cent of defendants in judge-alone trials were acquitted of all charges compared with 29 per cent in jury trials between 1993 and 2011. Professor Mark Findlay from the University of Sydney said that this is because “judges were less likely to be guided by their emotions.” Juries balance the rights of victims and society to a great extent. However, they are ineffective in balancing the rights of the offender as juries can be biased which violate the offender’s rights to have a fair
Now that we have discussed the pretrial occurrences, we get into the trial portion of the court process. This is the portion of the process in which both the defense and the prosecution present their cases to the jury, the judge, and the rest of the courtroom. To select a jury, the bring in potential jurors and ask them questions,
The court system is composed of lawyers, judges, and juries. Their job is to ensure that everyone receives a fair trial, determine guilt or innocence, and apply sentences to guilty parties. The court system will contain one judge, and a jury of twelve citizens. The jury of the court will determine the guilt or innocence of the individual. The jury will also recommend a sentence for the crime the individual committed.
The judge was referred to in your honor by the counsel, the accused and the prosecution. Additionally, there was the judge’s associate whose duty was to swear in the jury, keep the trial exhibits during the court proceedings and record the court verdict at the end of each trial. There was also the judge’s tipstaff, whose job was to announce that the court was in session as well as swear in witnesses. However, the most important duty of the tipstaff is to take care of the jury and escort them out of the courtroom. I learned that the jury selection process is called Venezuela....
The Selection, Training and Role of Magistrates in the English Legal System Lay magistrates are unqualified, part-time and unpaid profesionals who are chosen to serve in the magistrates court, yet they deal with the vast majority of cases in the legal system. They do not hear cases on their own but sit as a bench or panel of two or three other magistrates. The use of such unqualified people to judge cases is open to criticism. Magistrates sit in a magistrates court, usually in a bench of three.
The courts have the function of giving the public a chance to present themselves whether to prosecute or defend themselves if any disputes against them rise. It is known to everyone that a court is a place where disputes can be settled while using the right and proper procedures. In the Criminal court is the luxury of going through a tedious process of breaking a law. Once you have been arrested and have to go to court because of the arrest, you now have a criminal case appointed against you. The court is also the place where a just, fair and unbiased trial can be heard so that it would not cause any disadvantage to either of the party involved in the dispute. The parties are given a chance to represent themselves or to choose to have a legal representative, which is mostly preferred by many.
Before the internship, I thought judges were of course humans, but I was hoping they were nice. I thought it was going to be a bit intimidating, but I knew I looked up and aspired their profession. It was like the day I was going to meet my judge I was so nervous, yet I looked forward to it. I remember I was surprised different Judges would run their courtrooms differently. I thought they would kind of have a similar system for things, which they sort of do, but not completely. Generally speaking, the Judges are great individuals and are very unique. Most of the Judges have lived pretty interesting lives and seem to enjoy their jobs. The Judges seem to be very knowledgeable, and very considerate of the Jury, court reporters, and their clerks. The judges of course seem neutral when in front of the jury as expected. For example, Judge Lippitt, does not allow anytime to speak over each other in her court room she is always saying that they have to be respectful there is a human being recording this, referring to the court reporter. Then, she is very considerate of the Jury and their time, she will tell them the trial is longer at times to make them happy if it ends early. Further, Judge Lippitt really cares about the jury instructions and that they are as neutral as possible. Something I have learned from Judge Lippitt, is that you have to be very careful as a judge to notice when attorney’s are acting a little suspicious. Another very significant lesson I have learned from Judge Lippitt is that preparedness and awareness is really important.
Judicial Precedent "Within the present system of precedent in the English legal system, judges have very little discretion in their decision making." Judges have always been relied upon to interpret and apply the law. Therefore, their decisions should be fair and consistent so as the individuals seeking legal remedies would have more faith in the judicial system of the state. AS the UK has not a very complete and/or codified constitution, this doctrine is very much relied on as contrasted with other countries which seemed to have provisions for virtually any kind of offence, like France or the US where judges had only to refer to legislation.
As we know a judge is someone who gives the final verdict in the court proceedings. The judge is given all evidence from the defense and the plaintiff. He or she then goes and reviews all evidence. Evidence can be anything from police reports, photographs, statements etc. However, a poorly written report can highly affect the impact of the court proceeding. If the judge has to stop and question the police for what the report is saying is only causing