Adjudication In America Essay

Starting at the main topic of adjudication in America, there a few basics that need to be covered before we continue. Adjudication is defined as the act of making an order,judgment, or decree. Things such as a judicial decision or sentence, more or less. In America, when a juvenile has a petition filed from the prosecutor, the juvenile may plea bargain or if he chooses not to do then he is able to do so.
In the case of the juvenile choosing not to plea bargain, when his court time comes around, the judge will determine if this juvenile has committed an adjudication hearing and not take it in as a criminal trial. Now as it seems, an adjudication trial is very similar to to a criminal trial, due to many similarities and outcomes of both. The

thing that sets the adjudication process in America apart from other countries and also from being defined as a criminal trial is the lack of jury. The judge in this case will determine the prosecution for the juvenile. If the judge decides to dismiss the petition; this now makes the certain individual unable to be tried for this crime again. Most often referred to as double jeopardy in most court ordered cases.
When prosecution has met the demands , this individual is now adjudicated deliquent, meaning the juvenile has been found guilty.

A vast majority of petitioned cases have ended in deliquency adjudication. Roughly two-thirds of every case given into trials end as such.
The three types of disputes that adjudication reasolves are: Disputes between private parties, such as individuals or corporations ,Disputes between private parties and public officials, Disputes between public officials or public bodies.
Adjudication is normally catergorized as a judicial function. Although courts are often involved in other types of activity. They perform functions in a manager demeanor, for example, when they administer bankruptcy laws, or when they are supervising the enforcement of antitrust decrees. Things like alien naturalization and handling divorices and other domestic relations questions mainly involve administrative responsibilities. In the US, each states judges normally have power of appointment to particular public offices. State courts are obligated to assume any assignments that are given to them by the state constitutions. Federal courts are authorized by article III of the US constitution , in which it states: To hear cases or controversies. They then become very strict going by the Supreme Court to not include anything other than adjudicative

functions.
The controversie that normally are resolved in court using the adjudication process come to attention between private parties and public officials and between public officials or public bodies. These disputes are adjudicated according to rule of law, and with very drawn out and strict procedures that present proof and reasonable arguments by each party in trial. The participation by each party is insured by formal rules. With the objective being to attain a result that will meet the test of reason. The judge to whom he is making a reasoned argument is made impartial. This meaning the judgeis to make un biased decisions. The disputes that are taken to the judges in civil cases are normally claims of right resting upon rule of law. In criminal cases these disputes involve accusations due to fault that also rest upon rule of law.
In conclusion , while some think courts lack the power to take role and responsibilty, due to them waiting for a party to bring the dispute to them , their role is essentially passive. With the judge using no biased information, they prefer to leave initiation of litigation to the parties. Although courts sometimes lack power to enforce a decree, the always depend on the branches of government to be used as the back bone of enforcement. Lastly, the courts do depend on the legistlature for support of financial and organizational matters.