A judge in a courtroom has many powers. They can decide who can speak and who has to be quite. One power a judge has that has been given to them in early history is contempor. Contemnor is when the judge holds a person to be in contempt of court. Federal and state courts hold this power, that way it keeps the court in an orderly function in administering justice. There are different types of contempt of court: civil contempt and criminal contempt. Criminal contempt has two differences as well, direct and indirect criminal contempt. This helps the judge with preserving order in the court and judicial proceedings. A civil contempt is being held in contempt of court pending the performance of some court ordered act (Sheb and Sheb). It is not considered a crime, rather it being more of embarrassment. According to the book “Criminal Law and Procedure” it is usually a sanction imposed to coerce a recalcitrant person to obey court order. Usually you are violating a court order or intentionally being obnoxious of some sort to interfere with the administration of the court. If you are ever found guilty of not paying …show more content…
Often times if the person continues to obstruct the courtroom they do get in contempt of court. Sacher V United States 1952, is a good example. Five Lawyers were persistent obstructive colloquies, objections, arguments, and many groundless charges against the court (Sheb and Sheb). Judge Harold Medina held the lawyer in contempt of court because of that. Medina felt as if he was losing power in his courtroom having the lawyers disrupt like that. Having the power of contempt is a fair process. That way everybody is respected in a courtroom and when it's their turn to speak they may speak. Judges should also be able to save themselves of being in contemptuous conduct. It’s their courtroom, they should have the power to save
Steve Bogira, a prizewinning writer, spent a year observing Chicago's Cook County Criminal Courthouse. The author focuses on two main issues, the death penalty and innocent defendants who are getting convicted by the pressure of plea bargains, which will be the focus of this review. The book tells many different stories that are told by defendants, prosecutors, a judge, clerks, and jurors; all the people who are being affected and contributing to the miscarriage of justice in today’s courtrooms.
Facts: Two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter a colored woman and Richard Loving a white man, got married in the District of Columbia. The Loving's returned to Virginia and established their marriage. The Caroline court issued an indictment charging the Loving's with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. The state decides, who can and cannot get married. The Loving's were convicted of violating 20-55 of Virginia's code.
“I think there’s just one kind of folks. Folks” (Lee 304). Harper Lee is the renowned author of To Kill a Mockingbird which was inspired by the real events of the Scottsboro Trials. Throughout her novel, Lee indirectly references the case by creating characters, events, and symbols that resemble and contrast the case. These elements allow the novel to emerge with a more realistic and historic plot. In particular, the similarities and differences between Judge Horton and Judge Taylor, Victoria and Mayella, and the atmosphere of the courtroom are most prevalent. By examining these components one will be able to respect the historical features present in Harper Lee’s fictional literary phenomenon, To Kill a Mockingbird.
In this essay, I will be examining how the court system can fail to deliver justice for particular cases and people’s circumstances, as well as looking at alternatives to court, like circle sentencing, restorative sentencing and alternatives for children to the formal court system, as outlined in the Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW). Crime is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as an action or omission which constitutes an offence and is punishable by law. On the other side of this is justice; the quality of being fair and reasonable.
The hierarchy of the court is made in a way that screams power. The judge would take the high seat in the court. This is illustrative of God. The judge has a position of true power; he is seated at the top of the court, looking down on everyone. This alone suggests that the judge believes he is above the working class. It shows his power and authority from his position alone. The intimidation of looking up to someone and answering all his questions will, again reinforce their place in society. Thus, power and authority is maintained through the structure of the court. It is a simple reminder that the working class are not above the law – the law being the ones who make it, the ruling
The criminal trial process is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society to a great extent. For the law to be effective, the criminal trial process must reflect what is accepted by society to be a breach of moral and ethical conduct and the extent to which protections are granted to the victims, the offenders and the community. For these reasons, the criminal trial process is effectively able to achieve this in the areas of the adversary system, the system of appeals, legal aid and the jury system.
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...
The courtroom is a ritualised space, involving costume, language, spatial organisation and so on, and courts, therefore, constitute performative exercises of power. Discuss some of the ways in which courts demonstrate power and/or power relations.
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 same. Then, there are the circuit courts coming in as the middle step of the judicial system.
The use of evidence and witnesses is a mechanism in which the law attempts to balance the rights of victims and offenders in the criminal trial process. Evidence used in court are bound by the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and have to be lawfully obtained by the police. The use of evidence and witnesses balance the victims’ rights to a great extent. However, it is ineffective in balancing the rights of offenders. The law has been progressive in protecting the rights of victims in the use and collection of evidence and witness statements. The Criminal Procedure Amendment (Domestic Violence Complainants) Bill 2014, which amends the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, passed the NSW Legislative Council on 18 November 2014. The amendment enables victims of
The two basic types of courts in the United States are trial courts and appellate courts. These two types of courts have two entirely different functions. The job of a trial courts is to determine questions of fact. Appeals courts, on the other hand, must determine questions of law. Appellate courts have the right to overrule jury verdicts and judges decisions due to the fact that an appellate court typically concerns itself solely with issues of law. An appeal is not the time to retry the case or to reargue the facts. In civil matters, either party can appeal the decision of the trial court. Usually in criminal matters, however, only the defendant may appeal a criminal conviction and the state is not allowed to appeal a not guilty verdict. The sentencing in criminal cases with a guilty verdict, however, may be appealed by either the defendant or by the prosecution (uscourts.gov, 23).
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.
the study takes place may have more of an effect on child Ps than we
In the courtroom, the judge was presiding over the court, and because the matters were on criminal cases there were jurors. This jury received instructions from the judge about the law, as they were nonprofessional. A jury consists of twelve persons when it comes to serious felonies and six members when it is only a misdemeanor. The reason why the judge gave them the facts on the law was to help them deliberate after the case was over to establish whether the accused person was guilty or not. The judge was referred as to 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 work 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 ou...
The court room, also branded as a “theatre of the absurd” is habitually recognised as a revered space which exhibits and explores distinctive features and the use of power. The inequality of power in the courtroom was predominantly seen during the observations and is unmistakably highlighted through the architectural design and spacing, the dialect and the clothing worn by the court personnel. Fundamentally accentuating through these displays of power, the injustices often seen in the courtrooms. The ethnomethodology in the courtroom underscores the dynamics of power, exhibiting the different ranks of individuals found at court. The abuse of power through language – both verbal and visual was highly noticed during both the criminal and civil