Essay Sample on America's Court and Criminal Justice System

Introduction

The justice system is an essential service for people to live in harmony. The U.S justice system is gradually changing and incorporating new ideas. This paper explores some of the concepts in the justice system.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Law of Precedent

Precedent is a crucial characteristic of the common law in the U.S court system. Stare decisis is Latin for "let the decision stand." Law of precedent offers rulings made by judges in past cases as a benchmark for subsequent cases. Verdicts made follow patterns of previous cases provided they have similar facts. The use of precedent in ruling offers policy growth over time. The court system strives to resolve contemporary crimes rather than solving a range of legal problems at once. The use of precedent creates consistency and fairness in the court system. The court system is conservative, and there is a need to achieve flexibility in future trials. Therefore, court rulings need to distinguish between precedents in the past ruling to make a recent ruling.

Writ of Certiorari and Law of Four

The American Supreme court, on limited occasions, acts as the original jurisdiction for cases. Therefore, the Supreme Court's primary role is to review decisions made by the highest court and the lower federal courts. The appellate jurisdiction is somewhat discretionary than mandatory. Granting of the writ of certiorari allows the Supreme Court to exercise this discretion mandate. The process starts with a petition being signed by a party, and the Supreme Court issues orders to lower courts and the high court to present case records to determine whether the law was applied correctly. The rule of four determines which cases will be reviewed. The phenomenon helps a minority of court impose on the majority on a question that is viewed as inappropriate.

Centralized Administration

The state high court offers leadership in the court system and acts as the court of last resort. Reformers envisage policy directive emanating from a central office to all local court officials. The court system is planned as a hierarchical top-down flow of authority, and local courts are held accountable by the state high court. Centralized administration is believed to control all legal and non-judicial administrators. In the case of the ruling, the state high court is believed to make rulings that should be accepted and adopted by the local court administrators. The state high court prepares a centralized budget for the entire judicial procedures. The central administration gives the state high court full control of all judicial and non-judicial officers.

Assembly Line Justice

Assembly line justice is the problem of a significant difference between the number of cases and the number of judges. The court system from the defense attorneys, prosecutors, judges, and even probation officers is greatly understaffed. A phenomenon witnessed in all aspects of the judicial system. The entire personnel has to deal with strict deadlines and long calendar schedules. Although witnessed and reported nearly fifty years ago, the situation is still the same, a short-staffed and underfunded court system. Assembly line justice leads to cases being handled in bulk. Likewise, judicial and non-judicial administrators' have specialized in specific tasks. Lower Courts result in sentencing based on defendant membership class as opposed to individual case consideration.

Community Prosecution

Community prosecution is when district attorney files charges and resolutely seeks conviction to fulfill a community urge to lower crime rates. The act of stress case processing is slightly blurry as community prosecutors deal with diverse community problems ranging from juvenile offenders, domestic violence, and drug abuse (center for court innovation, 2012b). All approaches have three elements, firstly the prosecutor's role is to prosecute cases and lessen crime rates. Secondly, effective results are achieved within small and manageable communities leading forcing district attorneys to work from neighborhood offices. Thirdly, change is achieved through community partnership as opposed to prosecutors dictating progress, and frequently are time's community leaders set the crime development agenda. This program has led to different features where district attorneys use civil remedies to combat crime. Generally, community prosecution stresses crime prevention and a proactive approach to fight crime (Miles, 2013).

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Ineffective Assistance of counsel is when a defendant is unjustly represented, and actions of defense counsel cause a wrongful ruling. An attorney's conduct on strategy and tactic all make serious deductions of competent and capable performance. Knowles vs. Mirzayance's (2009) case ineffective Assistance of counsel can be used to reverse a ruling. If the process is profoundly unfair and the verdict would have differed, was it not for ineffective counsel. For death penalty cases, the standards are even higher. In a case with gross misconduct with a defense attorney failing to investigate the defendant's troubled family background, new sentencing was ordered (Wiggins v. Smith, 2003). Practical Assistance of counsel incorporates court trials and pretrial processes. Missouri vs. Frye and Lafler vs. cooper signaled a shift in sixth amendment jurisprudence to encompass the plea bargain included in the court system.

Victim Impact Statement

Victim Impact Statements are information oral or written of crime impact on the victim. These statements are used to convince the court to give severe sentences, although appeals for leniency happen occasionally. Victims offering their statements during trial usually should not be uninterrupted. In two instances, South Carolina vs. Gathers (1989) and Booth vs. Maryland (1987), the court deemed unconstitutional victim impact statements for capital cases. Victim impact statement imposed an unacceptable risk of jury unjustly giving a death penalty. Prosecutors sway the jury emotionally for a death penalty after the victim's grandmother offered an emotional victim impact statement (Payne vs. Tennessee, 1991). However, the statement does have devastating impacts on death penalty cases where a jury is swayed to offer harsh verdicts. Victims offering statement evidence are beneficial, and victims become satisfied with verdicts and the court system.

Initial Appearance

U.S supreme held that persons arrested by police on the grounds of probable cause should be arraigned in a court. The magistrate determines the validity of the reason for the arrest. Initial Appearance is also referred to as Gerstein hearing, which statutes offer it should be immediately. In the county of riverside vs. McLaughlin (1981), the Supreme Court allows this to should happen within 48 hours after a warrantless arrest. The Gerstein hearing is essential for the suspect; as the charges are read, allowed to make necessary arrangements for defense, limit the law enforcement's wrongful holding and extended interrogation, and for minor offenses an expedited process. For felony suspects, a plea is possible since initial Appearance usually happens in a court of lesser jurisdiction.

Discovery of Exculpatory Evidence

Exculpatory evidence is material with sufficient evidence to challenge confidence in the verdict had it been disclosed to the defense. The U.S Supreme Court held that the prosecution's suppression of crucial evidence was deemed a violation of due process (Brady vs. Maryland, 1963). The prosecution is under no obligation to give the defendant anything deemed as exculpatory evidence if it is inadmissible. The Brady rule only applies to relevant evidence. Prosecutors make judgment calls to provide evidence as a standard practice. Though in recent years the court has ruled, they have been narrow in their interpretation. The prosecution is not bound to make its files available for defendant perusal nor discloses speculative, inculpatory or neutral evidence. Though, under Brady rule prosecution duties are not limited to situations where defendant request for the evidence

Plea Bargaining

An offender pleads guilty to criminal charges with intent to receive leniency from the state is the process of plea bargaining. A plea bargain can be of count, sentence, or charge. Count bargaining is where offenders plead guilty for one or more counts in charges, and the prosecutor dismisses the rest of the charges. Secondly, charge bargain. The offender pleads guilty to a less severe charge than initially convicted. Sentence bargaining, the defendant's guilty plea, is in exchange for leniency during sentencing. The defendant is offered a less sentence on the maximum offense penalty.

Reference

Neubauer, D. W., & Fradella, H. F. (2018). America's courts and the criminal justice system. Cengage Learning.