Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Similarities between state and federal courts
Federal court vs state court compare and contrast
The role of the courts
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Similarities between state and federal courts
The function of the courts play many different roles throughout. American courts play a great role in taking societies rules and properly enforcing them. It is important to add that American courts handle more than just criminal justice matters as well. They also handle dispute processing for our society, as well as policy making. When looking at the structure of the courts there are two systems; the Federal court system, and the State court system. Both serving a vital role within the court systems. Depending on which law has been broken will determine what court system that individual will go through. The Federal court systems contains the District Court, the Circuit court of appeals, and the Supreme Court of the United States. While the State court system contains the Trail courts of limited jurisdiction, the Trail courts of general jurisdiction, and intermediate courts of appeal, and the Appellate court of last resort. Looking at both Federal and State they serve a vital role in enforcing societies rules. In each …show more content…
The courtroom work group is a group of individuals who connect within the workplace on multiple issues and how they should be solves. This issues consist of shared goals, buses, norms, network and roles within that. These relationships are important because these individuals work together as one to make important decisions within each courtroom. Each work group may vary due to the culture within. Each individual has their own opinion, yet as a group they may function great together. I see it as more good than bad because it includes so many different people from he courtroom. The only reason I could see it as being and is if the group as a whole has a specific bias creating a courtroom bias towards things. Other than that I believe it is good to have a courtroom work group because they are working as a team to complete a main
pleas may be choose for the punishment likely to be associated with them rather than for their accuracy in describing the criminal offense in which the defendant was involved. For instance, a charge of indecent liberties, for example, in which the defendant is accused of sexual
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.
How are federal courts of general jurisdiction different from state courts of general jurisdiction? State courts deal with every day cases dealing with state laws and regulations. They can vary from criminal procedures in civil or family cases, to lower offenses, such as parking tickets. They tend to be specific to the laws of each state, as the state is allowed to form their own set of laws to keep their residents “free and treat them equally”. Federal courts on the other hand, hear criminal that violate the US Constitution and/or cases that cross state lines , along with civil cases or bankruptcy cases. Both courts have appellate courts and interprets the laws (either state or federal laws). Federal court is more selective on the cases it
Before the adoption of the United States Constitution, the U.S. was governed by the Articles of Confederation. These articles stated that almost every function of the government was chartered by the legislature known as Congress. There was no distinction between legislative or executive powers. This was a major shortcoming in how the United States was governed as many leaders became dissatisfied with how the government was structured by the Articles of Confederation. They felt that the government was too weak to effectively deal with the upcoming challenges. In 1787, an agreement was made by delegates at the Constitutional Convention that a national judiciary needed to be established. This agreement became known as The Constitution of the United States, which explicitly granted certain powers to each of the three branches of the federal government, while reserving other powers exclusively to the states or to the people as individuals. It is, in its own words, “the supreme Law of the Land” (Shmoop Editorial Team).
The main concept of the courtroom workgroup is associated with plea bargaining. These courtroom workgroups show amazing explanations of power in overcrowded courts that are dealing with a large amount of cases. There are many groups that make up the courtroom workgroup; there are many roles that these individuals play within the group. The individuals within this group have frequent and ongoing relationships; they all interact in a wide variety of manners and even different settings. There are no changes that I would make to the courtroom workgroup. I understand that these individuals know exactly what they are doing and make changes every day. I believe that these individuals are doing what right for the public as well as the offenders is.
The court system of any country is a fundamental aspect of the society. In this respect, there are no public institutions in Canada which are subject to public scrutiny like the court system. People expectations of how they are treated by others are guided by laws made by various levels of institutions of justice. The Canadian judicial system, particularly, has undergone major developments and challenges as well. This paper explores three published articles that report on the problem of patronage appointments what lies behind the confidence in the justice system and the relevance of gender and gender equality in the legal profession.
The following assertion intends to provide an in-depth insight into my personal experience observing a trial in the Supreme Court of Victoria. This paper will outline a selection of many pressing issues noticed throughout my observation, more specifically those regarding the law and language in legal arenas along with symbolic and architectural traditions that reinforce prejudice towards those from a low socio-economic background and ethnic minority groups. Furthermore, it will argue how symbolism, architecture and practices within a court are in place to create a power dynamic and reinforce the courts British-'western' sovereignty and royal-like wealth which in turn intimidates members of the community especially from ethnically diverse or disadvantaged groups. I intend to demonstrate the power and authority of judges and the courts by drawing comparisons between the judges status in a court room with royalty and religious pastors, through the observation of attire, title and actual positioning in a court room.
First, according to justice.gov, “The federal court system has three main levels: district courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court of the United States.” The courts all have a different role to play in the judicial system. Court systems exist to provide justice for all. Now, the district court system is the beginning of the judicial system. A good amount of the cases handled by the district court system are either criminal or civil trial cases.
Problem solving courts can affect the entire judicial system by weeding out cases that can go to a drug court, traffic court, or whichever
Judges, prosecutors, defense council and juries are the focal point of a trial. The following will show each of their roles in the courtroom and the importance of these roles and how they are perceived by the media compared to my own view.
Justice is a vital part of the American Court System and influenced and continues to influence since the beginning of American history. Structure and organization is an important factor that creates our outstanding court systems. The State and U.S Constitutions are not the only foundation of the court systems, but also that people that work hard to thrive for justice. Today, justice and equality causes the court systems to change and adapt to continue protecting the rights of the people.
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.
Some people say that by watching the court system in action, what once was very unknown and unfamiliar, has now become familiar and useful in helping people become more knowledgeable of what happens inside courtrooms. Most people have not been in a courtrooms and only have the perspective that T.V. gives to them. Now they are able to see what really goes on and now can better understand and relate.
In conclusion, the courtroom is a very good place to learn and understand the practical side of the law than the theoretical part. This is because a person gets first hand information, and the counsels and the crown prosecutor brings out various facts that are supported by statutes and precedents. Additionally, one gets to see how justice is administered and whether what people say about the justice system is true or false. Therefore, by visiting the courtroom, I have to understand that the administration of justice is fair.
They help in resolving disputes between people, and interpret as well as apply the law. In doing so, they are able to define our right and responsibilities. On the other hand, they are also able to rid the society from wrong doers who commit the crime. That said, there is no doubt judges are very integral to the American judicial process. That is why their judgment should be, at all times, fair and free from prejudice. Additionally, the judges are expected to have high standards of behavior and that is why in the vetting they must demonstrate this fact. They are expected to execute fair judgment to all, rich and poor alike. However, in order for the judges to be able to execute fair judgment at all times, it is important that they receive the right support from all quotas and more so from the citizens.