Dual Court System - Assignment Example

? “Love” --Theory and Practice in Court-- The dual court system is a two tier judiciary system comprising of the and Federal court structures. The dual court system of the United States comprises federal and state courts, which is a product of federalism. In other areas, federal courts share authority with state courts. For instance, both federal and state courts might make decisions on cases regarding parties who reside in dissimilar states. State courts cover exclusive authority above a majority of cases. Judges employ definite guidelines and philosophies when formulating their verdicts. They are; retribution, test of proportionality, rehabilitation, deterrence and restoration. The drive towards court unification can not ultimately lead to a monolithic system because this will grant the federal court system excessive power. The dual court system is a two tier judiciary system comprising of the State and Federal court structures. The dual-court system is the product of a universal agreement amongst the country's founders concerning the requirement for individual states to maintain considerable legislative power and judicial independence separate from federal control. Unification onto a monolithic court structure appears improbable to occur anytime to combine the state and federal structures, and if it did would likely not be extremely effective. In sentencing, judges are restricted by statutory requirements; guided by existing philosophical rationales, executive considerations, and presentence inquiry reports; and subjective to their own individual characteristics. Q1. According to Neubauer and Fradella (2010), the dual court system of the United States comprises federal and state courts, which is a product of federalism. The U.S. Constitution institutes the judicial division of the federal administration and stipulates the power of the federal courts. Federal courts have restricted authority only over definite types of cases, for instance, cases concerning arguments between states, federal laws and cases concerning foreign governments. In other areas, federal courts share authority with state courts. For instance, both federal and state courts might make decisions on cases regarding parties who reside in dissimilar states. State courts cover exclusive authority above a majority of cases. While State courts developed from early colonial arrangements, federal courts where established by the United States constitution. Dual court system has been affected by its account since the model of two court structures still remains. There have been modifications to the individual courts to create them run smoother akin to the three tier homogeneous structure taken up by the state courts. The administration of state courts is by their own constitution and statutes, US Constitution and statutes, rulings and model from superior courts in the state, judgments of the federal courts in their jurisdiction, and by example from the US Supreme Court and federal petition courts in their area of jurisdiction. According to Reid (2011), US Constitution and Statutes, the US Supreme Court, and judgments from the petition courts in their jurisdiction guide the federal courts. The association between federal and state courts is viewed as judicial federalism. Judicial federalism is a hierarchical structure that is commonly understood and has a legal establishment. The federal Constitution institutes a national court structure and specifies that discrepancies between federal and state law. These are to be determined in preference of the former, and the judges of the state courts are compiled by this principle. Thus, state courts should give priority to federal over state law, and infer with the federal law in line with existing judgments of the Supreme Court. The Court's fundamental justice and appropriate process guidelines, enunciated to give state courts with the flexibility to extend satisfactory protections of the accused, were regarded as indistinct and subjective. Several state judges made hard-working efforts to apply the model; while others seize the advantage of the lack of accurate guidelines. Q1A. A key factor to retaining the dual-court system is the absolute expenditure and total time it that would available for the U.S. Supreme Court or one central body. This is crucial in to determining and sentencing all offences regardless of how enormous or diminutive. In addition, a dual-court system guarantees that each trial is just, and neither court system may over rule nor be more powerful than the other. Therefore, they keep each other in check (Reid, 2011). Q1B. The drive towards court unification can not ultimately lead to a monolithic system because this will grant the federal court system excessive power. Moreover, Neubauer and Fradella (2010) explain that state legislative formulate enhanced judgment when it comes to the local affairs and requirements of the state. Q1C. This will not be an effectual solution since the system is intricate. The state legislature is robust to formulate the right verdict concerning local affairs. In addition, different states have their own different constitutions and statutes, which determine the state courts. Neubauer and Fradella (2010) argue that the creation of a monolithic system may call for an overhaul of the state courts and the establishment of harmonious statutes and constitution to govern the state courts. Monolithic court systems may also create integrative problems that weaken the authority of the courts. Each state is different starting from ethics and morals to cultures, and so are the rules and regulations that are specific for each state. Thus, the monolithic court system will also obliterate the exclusivity of each state, whose establishment has been over time. In a monolithic system, the cases will not be well thought-out on merit since the time will not be available, but on the rules and regulations that rule the single court system. Q2. Judges employ definite guidelines and philosophies when formulating their verdicts. They are; retribution, test of proportionality, rehabilitation, deterrence and restoration (Tonry, 2011). It is also reasonable to state that no one philosophy is the precise option when judges are passing sentences. My preference if I were a judge will be a combination of the retribution, test of proportionality, and deterrence objectives. Retribution objective sentencing aims at punishing criminals doing wrong. It allows the punishment of the crime fit the philosophy of the crime. Test of proportionality guides sentencing based on the magnitude of the offense and regularity of the severity of punishment. According to Clear, Reisig and Cole (2012), the criminal sentence should be in proportion to the offense for which the offender pleads guilty. Deterrence is a correctional objective focusing on potential actions, or the aversion of actions by both persons and the society. The prospect is that, as a consequent of offenders getting retribution, it will deter or discourage them and others from committing felonies in the future. For me, the punishment accorded should be proportionate to the crime for instance; an accused should pay with his life for the life of his victim. I also suppose that through retribution and the enhanced programs, which assist teach criminals that will be giving back to the society an ability while in the penitentiary or jail, could help present them an option to crime when that occurs. Deterrence will aid to avert repeat offences and a likelihood of an individual opting to join crime. Handing down sentences that are proportional to the crimes committed may be deterrence to future felonies. Q2D. The crimes that were committed with a deliberate, free-will mind and are intentional may change my sentencing goals. Crimes committed due to self-defense, which are largely unintentional. Planning and premeditation leads to deliberate and intentional crimes, and hence will attract higher and stiffer sentences compared to self-defense. Q3. A probable case will be that of a family member of a homicide victim who murders the criminal accused or convicted of killing their dear one. This case will be difficult to formulate a decision since it will complicate my sentencing guidelines and philosophical rationales. For instance, the case of Darius McKeever who shot and murdered the man indicted of killing his wife and 4 year old son. The police force did not have sufficient proof to charge the man with the homicide of the boy and his mother, but the man was said to have been boasting about it on the streets. The homicides were allegedly committed over a liability of $100.00, and three weeks after the law enforcement said they can not indict the suspect since he was found shot to death. Simultaneously, Mckeever was detained just as the police were closing the inquiry into his the homicides, incriminating them to the man he had shot. This will be a complicated case for me since, if I stuck with my belief of a life for a life, Mr. Mckeever must be set a death sentence for his offense. I would be in disagreement though because of the motive and status of why he had taken the life. In conclusion, the rationales for punishment are subjective to the broad political, philosophical and social arguments of the prevailing time. Prevailing thoughts concerning the causes of felonies are directly tied to inquiries of responsibility, and consequently to the rationale for authorization. Courts are endorsed to hear and make a decision on cases and disputes occurring within a particular territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, courts of a different state do not have authority to try an individual convicted of committing a felony in a different state. References Clear, T., Reisig, M. and Cole, G. (2012). American Corrections. New York: CengageBrain.Com Neubauer, D. and Fradella, H. (2010). America’s Courts and the Criminal Justice System. New York: CengageBrain.Com Reid, S. (2011). Criminal Justice Essentials. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons. Tonry, M. (2011). The Oxford Handbook of Crime and Criminal Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More