Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
American justice system
U.s justice system
American justice system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: American justice system
It is no secret that the American legal system is distinct from other developed Western nations in its practices and laws. This variation, termed “adversarial legalism” by Professor Robert Kagan in his book, Adversarial Legalism, has two salient features: formal legal contestation and litigant activism. In civil and criminal law, jury trials and a specific lawyering culture exemplify these traits. Though adversarial legalism responds well to the American desires of justice and protection from harm while simultaneously respecting the societal fear of a government with too much power, it leads to extremely costly litigation and immense legal uncertainty. To reconcile the American view of justice and the undesirable outcomes of formal contestation and litigant activism, the legal system has gone so far as to reform large parts of the system, including bureaucratic regulations and the plea bargaining process. However, as Kagan states, rather than reduce the costliness or uncertainty of the legal process, these procedural changes have merely lead to an increase in litigation and, therefore, an increase of adversarial legalism in criminal and civil law.
One trait of adversarial legalism, formal legal contestation, greatly emphasizes the importance of procedures, rules, and the jury system. Phoebe Ellsworth, in The Social Organization of Law, highlights a number of these procedures and rules. For example, jurors cannot make autonomous inquiries during the trial, unanimity is required of the jurors, and jurors cannot look at how previous juries may have decided similar cases because juries do not leave written records. There are even rules in the evidence collecting system, like those defining the legal limits of search and seizure, tha...
... middle of paper ...
...nts that they feel they often have no choice but to plea guilty and accept the bargain. Prosecutors can exploit the consequences produced by adversarial legalism in a way that allows them to process a high volume of cases and obtain a large number of guilty pleas. The systematic changes to civil and criminal law in an attempt to avoid the negative outcomes of adversarial legalism only makes the system less useful for citizens.
While adversarial legalism satisfies the American want for complete protection by a purposefully fragmented government, the effects on the individual are highly undesirable. The cost and unreliability associated with litigant activism and formal contestation have the strong possibility of discouraging citizens from pushing forward in dispute and criminal claims. Unfortunately, these are the consequences of adversarial legalism in America.
Pagan writes a captivating story mingled with the challenges of the Eastern Shore legal system. This book gives a complete explanation backed up by research and similar cases as evidence of the ever-changing legal system. It should be a required reading for a history or law student.
In conclusion, "To strive for justice, one must be a person of principles. There is no single principle that one can use to achieve justice in the resolution of legal disputes." This is true because one must use a wide array of principles that come from moral and legal perspectives in order to gain a resolution. Unfortunately society has deemed it necessary to incorporate social stratification into some of these principles. The law tends to have more leniencies to those who have higher positions in society. With as many classes as our society today, it is impossible to find a jury of peers. Each person has their own idea of cultural norms, legal and moral principles, and a socio-class in which they belong to. Therefore, I contend that social stratification, whether it is between races, or economical levels, will always have some role in legal decisions.
In America, every individual has the right to a fair trial, but how fair is the trial? When an individual is on trial, his or her life is on the line, which is decided by twelve strangers. However, who is to say that these individuals take their role seriously and are going to think critically about the case? Unfortunately, there is no way to monitor the true intentions of these individuals and what they feel or believe. In the movie, Twelve Angry Men, out of the twelve jurors’ only one was willing to make a stance against the others, even though the evidence seemed plausible against the defendant. Nevertheless, the justice system is crucial; however, it is needs be reformed.
At trial, your life is in the palms of strangers who decide your fate to walk free or be sentenced and charged with a crime. Juries and judges are the main components of trials and differ at both the state and federal level. A respectable citizen selected for jury duty can determine whether the evidence presented was doubtfully valid enough to convict someone without full knowledge of the criminal justice system or the elements of a trial. In this paper, juries and their powers will be analyzed, relevant cases pertaining to jury nullification will be expanded and evaluated, the media’s part on juries discretion, and finally the instructions judges give or may not include for juries in the court. Introduction Juries are a vital object to the legal system and are prioritized as the most democratic element in our society, aside from voting, in our society today.
In William Hudson’s book, American Democracy in Peril, he writes about different “challenges” that play a vital role in shaping the future of the United States. One is the problem of the “imperial judiciary”. Hudson defines its as that the justice system in the United States has become so powerful that it is answering and deciding upon important policy questions, questions that probably should be answered by our democratic legislatures. Instead of having debates in which everyone’s voices are heard and are considered in final decision-making process, a democratic-like process; we have a single judge or a small group of judges making decisions that effect millions of citizens, an “undemocratic” process. Hudson personally believes the current state of judicialized politics is harming policy decisions in Americans. According to him, the judicial branch is the “least democratic branch”, and ...
The laundry list of crimes Americans have suffered at the hands of their own criminal justice system is because they don’t have the right tools to fight back against those that have the ability to sway litigation.
Throughout the years there has been limitless legal cases presented to the court systems. All cases are not the same. Some cases vary from decisions that are made by a single judge, while other cases decisions are made by a jury. As cases are presented they typically start off as disputes, misunderstandings, or failure to comply among other things. It is possible to settle some cases outside of the courts, but that does require understanding and cooperation by all parties involved. However, for those that are not so willing to settle out of court, they eventually visit the court system. The court system is not in existence to cause humiliation for anyone, but more so to offer a helping hand from a legal prospective. At the same time, the legal system is not to be abuse. or misused either.
The American people rely on the justice system set up by our founding fathers to uphold certain standards of fairness and equality. Society is brainwashed into believing that the justice system is to flaw and bad people are supposed to go to jail. However, this has not been the case for many years due to corruption in the Supreme Court followed by the Federal Courts and other inferior state courts. The American justice system has taken on a life of its own, following theories of fairness that are no longer connected to the needs of a free society. Instead of a justice system that weeds out the good from the evil, power has been given to the prosecutors, finding a good lawyer is harder than it seems, and rules have become unconstitutional.
Johnson, J., Keyzer, P., Holland, G., Pearson, M., Rodrick, S., & Wallace, A 2011, Juries and social media, Victorian Department of Justice, viewed 8 May 2014, < http://www.sclj.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/sclj/documents/pdf/juries%20and%20social%20media%20-%20final.pdf>.
A jury is a panel of citizens, selected randomly from the electoral role, whose job it is to determine guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented. The Jury Act 1977 (NSW) stipulates the purpose of juries and some of the legal aspects, such as verdicts and the right of the defence and prosecution to challenge jurors. The jury system is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society as members of the community ultimately decide whether the person is guilty or innocent. The creation of the Jury Amendment Act 2006 (NSW) enabled the criminal trial process to better represent the standards of society as it allowed majority verdicts of 11-1 or 10-2, which also allowed the courts to be more resource efficient. Majority verdicts still ensure that a just outcome is reached as they are only used if there is a hung jury and there has been considerable deliberation. However, the role of the media is often criticized in relation to ensuring that the jurors remain unbiased as highlighted in the media article “Independent Juries” (SMH, 2001), and the wide reporting of R v Gittany 2013 supports the arguments raised in the media article. Hence, the jury system is moderately effective in reflecting the moral and ethical standards of society, as it resource efficient and achieves just outcomes, but the influence of the media reduces the effectiveness.
From conception in the Magna Carta 1215, juries have become a sacred constitutional right in the UK’s justice system, with the independence of the jury from the judge established in the R v. Bushel’s case 1670. Although viewed by some as a bothersome and an unwelcomed duty, by others it is perceived to be a prized and inalienable right, and as Lord Devlin comments ‘ trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution : it is the lamp that shows freedom lives.’ It is arguable that juries bring a ‘unique legitimacy’ to the judicial process, but recently it seems that their abolition may be the next step forward for the UK in modernising and making the judicial system more effective. Many argue that jurors lack the expertise and knowledge to make informed verdicts, along with views that external forces are now influencing juries more heavily, especially after the emergence of the internet and the heavy presence it now has on our lives. Yet, corruption within the jury system is also internal, in that professionals and academics may ‘steamroll’ others during deliberations about the case. These factors, coupled with the exorbitant costs that come along with jury trials creates a solid case for the abolition of juries. On the other hand though, the jury system carries many loyal supporters who fear its abolition may be detrimental to society. Academics and professionals such as John Morris QC state that; 'it may well not be the perfect machine, but it is a system that has stood the test of time.’ Juries ensure fair-practice within the courtroom, and although controversial, they have the power to rule on moral and social grounds, rather than just legal pre...
The Hollow Hope examines the following research question: when can judicial processes be used to produce social change? (Rosenberg 1). Rosenberg starts out the book by describing the two different theories of the courts. The first theory, the Dynamic Court view, views the court as being powerful, vigorous, and potent proponents of change (Rosenberg 1). The second theory, the Constrained Court view, views the court in the complete opposite way. With this view the court is seen as weak, ineffective, and powerless (Rosenberg 3). In this view there are three different constraints that restrict the courts from producing effective political and social change. These constraints include: limited nature of constitutional rights, lack of judicial independence, and the lack of tools the courts need (Rosenberg 35). Even though there are constraints on the court there are conditions where the court is able to overcome the constraints.
Abadinsky, Howard. Law and Justice: An Introduction to the American Legal System. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2008. Print.
In an argument between prosecuting attorneys in “Scorched Earth,” the first episode of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit’s thirteenth season, a pessimistic critique of the American legal system’s power to protect the weak from the strong, the unspoken but nonetheless manifest presupposition of said attorneys regarding the ends of the justice system, appears in contrast to an implied legal idealism, but this critique is ultimately rendered tepid by a partial triumph later on in the episode for the side of justice through the work of dedicated legal agents sensitive to the rights of the powerless.
Yet it is all the more important that they do so now. Prosecutorial power has increased as our criminal justice system has moved away from an adversarial system to one of negotiated pleas. Sentencing is more often than not dictated by mandatory minimums or guidelines calculations, which vests more power in the prosecutor through charging decisions. The traditional tools for checking prosecutorial abuse—judges and the juries—have a much smaller role in the process than they once did. Finally, remedial measures, like suits for damages, are all but nonexistent. As a delegate to the Constitutional Convention remarked: "The life of a citizen ought not to depend on the fiat of a single person. Prejudice, resentment, and partiality are among the weaknesses of human nature, and are apt to pervert the judgment of the greatest and best of men. But because the life or liberty of the accused now depends increasingly on the decisions of one person, the prosecutor's commitment to seeking justice is all the more important. Here, we try to identify what one facet of seeking justice means and then examine the somewhat more beguiling question of how it could be better sought (Don J. DeGabrielle & Eliot F. Turner, Spring 2013). With the existence of ethics in criminal justice, prosecutors should be aware that their ethical obligations can exceed their constitutional ones. The