Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Criminal trial process in american
Problems with the american justice system
The American judicial system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Criminal trial process in american
How the American Legal System is Flawed The American legal system today is filled with corruption and untold truths compared to the European system. To understand how the American legal system is flawed, you will need to understand how both systems work. Both systems have a common law, which means that most laws are decided by legislators, but some laws are based on customs. The United States court system is based on the principle of precedent. For example, if a court has made a ruling on a similar case to the case they are presiding over then he or she has to respect the earlier ruling, with some exemptions (Henderson). This leaves a lot of room for suspicious activities because you only have to slip it past the courts once and it is final. …show more content…
It should be based that the judges have the ability to look over past cases and voice their opinions on them. One of the first noticeable principles that differ is that in the United States, every defendant has the right to a trial.
In Germany, there are no trials. There is a panel of judges in all cases which decide the person’s arraignment. Also in criminal cases, only 4 percent of cases reach a jury, instead the prosecutor threatens the defendant with harsh sentences unless he or she pleads guilty to a lesser crime. In doing this, the defendant gives names or information to the legal system of wanted people. In Germany, there is no such thing as plea deals. In comparison, each defendant pays for his or her crime, on only that person’s risk (A subjective comparison of Germany and the United States). Plea deals can be controversial because there can be a lot of backdoor bargaining, which can also be hard to prove in court. In the U.S., the legal system is based on politics and on the will of the highest bidder. If the person is higher in political standings they will use plea bargaining to the fullest extent and try to get that person the lowest sentence or no sentence if possible. The higher the social class the more power they can wield. In Germany, court preceding’s are less based on politics and more on the truth. It could be a great thing that unofficial evidence can be used against the person; it takes out the politics behind the case, which makes the truth come
out. There are a lot of other laws that differ in the United States and Germany that show how Germany is much better in managing their legal system. In the United States, the police are allowed to pose as anyone such as a young teenager, a guy wanting to buy marijuana etc. to solve a pending case with someone. But in Germany, tactics similar to undercover work are only used in severe cases. Also in the U.S., if evidence was obtained illegally it cannot be used against the person while in Germany it is legal. Another problem with the U.S. court system is that the judges themselves are just in it for the paycheck. They don’t put very much effort into the case and let the lawyers more so do more of the work. If the judges put all of their effort into their cases then they may be solved faster and more justly. The U.S. bases their legal system off of past judicial opinions as authoritative precedent when resolving litigation (Syam). This is not always effective and brings a lot of opinions into the court system instead of the facts of each case. With these opinions the court system is introduced with rulings that are not truthful. Although the European system is better in most things the US system has some strength. The American legal system is based on a system of federalism, or decentralization. While the national or “federal” government itself possesses significant powers, the individual states retain powers not specifically enumerated as exclusively federal (A Resource and Reference Guide). This lets the government keep power but also gives enough to the states have enough power to keep everything in order. The United States manages a government that is mostly filled with corruption and wasted money, as the European system manages theirs in a much better fashion that benefits them more than ours does to us. If the U.S reorganized their court system so that the upcoming cases are not based on the previous cases then the system would run much smoother and improve the nation.
An agreement made in a criminal case between a prosecutor and its defendant, before reaching a trial is a plea bargain. The prosecutor offers an opportunity to the defendant to plead guilty. By agreeing to plead guilty to a crime the defendant would in exchange get a prosecutor’s promise to convince the judge to reduce the sentence. It is really impossible to predict what a jury is going to decide in a trial. I personally think that plea bargaining is being used as an easy way out; instead of having the person who committed the crime pay for what they did by serving the whole time. By managing a plea bargain the terms can sometimes be used to include pondering on how it works and who it can help.
A plea bargain is determined good for someone based only on their facts and conditions of their case. A disadvantage of plea bargaining is actually admitting the guilt (Understanding). Plea bargains appear to only benefit the criminal because they ultimately receive a lesser punishment. A plea bargain might seem good now but it could have permanent impact on your life. An innocent person would most likely not want to plead guilty but could feel the pressure from lawyers to enter a plea just to avoid a lengthy and costly trial. Even if the innocent person accepts a plea with no jail time, they will still have the conviction on their record. I believe all cases should go to jury trail regardless of the time and cost because in all fairness it is the nest shot at finding the true criminal and issuing the appropriate punishment. Shamim Ebrahimi’s advice regarding plea bargains is, “Focus on the big picture, and make sure you are aware of your options and possible collateral consequences because, remember, plea bargains almost always require a defendant to plead guilty on the record, and more often than not that record will follow you around for the rest of your life”
The following is an adjusted version of an argument I presented in Critical Thinking last semester. My opinion has not changed, just expanded.. :)
The merits of both the adversarial and inquisitorial system will be explored throughout this paper. The Australian rule of law best describes as all law should be applied equally and fairly. The five vital operations of the rule of law includes fairness, rationality, predictability, consistency, and impartially. The adversarial system adopts these operations by having a jury decide on the verdict and the judge being an impartial decision maker. In contrast, the inquisitorial system relies heavily on the judge. This can result in abusive power and bias of the judge when hearing evidence and delivering verdicts. The operations of the rule of law determine why the rule of law is best served by the adversarial system in Australia.
Proverbs 21:15 New Living Translation (NLT) states, “Justice is a joy to the godly, but it terrifies evildoers.” With that being said, there are “94 district courts, 13 circuit courts, and one Supreme Court throughout the country.” The court systems are not in place to be abused by the representative nor those that are looking for assistance. The court systems exist to provide justice for all.
Law is a system of rules that has been set up by the legislative branch of our government. It is a must that every person in that country follow these laws, or severe consequences will be held against that person. In every court house legal systems are held. There are two common types of legal systems used, common law and civil law. Common law is used by countries that are from the British colonies, as this type of system was originated from England, when King Henry II wanted to combine the laws and customs together. Whereas, the countries that use civil law are from the European colonies (Common Law vs Civil Law,2009). Even though, both laws are commonly used, they differ in terms of the constitution, the jury’s opinion, the role of the
The Constitution of the United States of America (US) is the bedrock of the political and judicial system of a country which at the time founded represented a new direction of governance not practiced for nearly two millenniums. The US became the first democratic republic in modern history with a Constitution that came into force in 1789, deriving more ideals from the Romans or the Greek Mini-States that from any political system in place around the world at the time. It is undeniable, even by the strictest constructionist or originalists that the U.S. Constitution borrowed concepts not only from famous ancient philosophers like Aristotle or Cicero but also from modern political thinkers like Locke, Montesquieu
Sometimes it leaves red raw scars that will eventually fade into silver marks- blemishes that will never leave you. Someday the memories will be in loud colour but sometimes you might remember it in muted black and white –it doesn’t matter what shade the memories are; you will never forget.
While our Justice System is better than most countries it still has its flaws that hurts the american people in the long run. Our sixth amendment states that a person can't be tried without a jury, so someone decides your fate, and everyone can make mistakes. Another issue in our justice system is double jeopardy. Also another flaw is how police has a higher voice in the courtroom.
The Family Law Legislation Amendment Act of 2011 and whether it has Reduced Violence and Abuse for Women and Children
The American Court System is an important part of American history and one of the many assets that makes America stand out from other countries. It thrives for justice through its structured and organized court systems. The structures and organizations are widely influenced by both the State and U.S Constitution. The courts have important characters that used their knowledge and roles to aim for equality and justice. These court systems have been influenced since the beginning of the United State of America. Today, these systems and law continue to change and adapt in order to keep and protect the peoples’ rights.
MLK refers to the revolutionary time period of the united states when he says that freedom is never given by the oppressor. Also saying in his lifetime the word wait ment never and that countries in Asia and Africa were gaining their independence quicker than the blacks in America did, when the blacks demanded change all they got was the word wait.
Legal Pluralism is the presence of various legal systems within a single country or a geographical area. Legal Pluralism is omnipresent although it is generally assumed to exist in countries only with a colonial past. This is because in most countries with a colonial past, colonial laws co-exist alongside indigenous laws. However, if we look at the expansive definition of legal pluralism, it can be said that every society or country if legally plural. The modern definition of legal pluralism also deals with the issues of relation between state and non-state legal orders. It shows the dichotomy that exists between customary legal norms and state law. The judiciary of India has upheld this principle of pluralism in many cases by showing that
The grounds of judicial review help judges uphold constitutional principles by, ensuring discretionary power of public bodies correspond with inter alia the rule of law. I will discuss the grounds of illegality, irrationality and proportionality in relation to examining what case law reveals about the purpose and effect these grounds.
Should the aim of law be primarily focused on the protection of individual liberty or, instead, the normative goals aimed at the good of the society? The question of law and morality is difficult mainly because it needs to be addressed with current social conditions that exist, the morals and values that the particular society has. In general, the laws in any society should not only be focused on regulations, but it should also protect individual’s liberty. Devlin debate was based on deciding whether law should enforce morality. He debated about what the law ought to be and whether morality should be enforced by law to form a good society. Furthermore, John Stewart Mill did not write specifically on law and morality. His argument constituted mainly on the anti-enforcers side of law and morality because he believed in individual liberty. John Stuart Mill's assertion that the only justification for limiting one person's liberty is to prevent harm to another