LAW, CRIME AND JUSTICE

Judicial Branch. The Constitution (written in 1787) established a separate judicial branch of government which operates independently alongside the executive and legis­lative branches. Within the judicial branch, authority is divided between state and federal (national) courts. At the head of the judicial branch is the Supreme Court, the final interpreter of the Constitution.

The administrative body of the US judicial system is the Judicial Conference of the United States. It studies the procedures of the federal courts and recommends policy changes. The 25-member Judi­cial Conference also examines statistics that reflect the workload of each federal judicial circuit and district. It may recommend the trans­fer of judges to circuits or districts that have the heaviest workload. The group also handles complaints about federal judges who engage in misconduct or who are unable to perform their duties properly. The conference may investigate and take appropriate action. The Judicial Conference meets once a year. It submits its recom­mendations for changes to Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States. The recommended policies go into effect after 90 days unless Congress rejects them during that period. The chief jus­tice of the USA is chairman of the Judicial Conference. Other mem­bers are the chief judge of each of 11 federal judicial circuits and a district court judge from each circuit. Congress established the Judi­cial Conference in 1922.

The US Court System. The American Colonies based their courts on the English com­mon-law system. These colonial courts became state courts after the United States became an independent nation in 1776. Only Loui­siana modelled its court system on civil law. In 1789, Congress passed the Judiciary Act, which created the federal court system.

The US has 2 separate court systems. In general terms state courts are used when someone has done something against the laws or Constitution of a particular state. Federal courts deal with cases to do with the laws and Constitution of the United States as a whole. Both court systems state and federal, are organized into 3 basic levels of courts: trial courts, intermediate courts of appeal and a high court, or the Supreme Court.

Federal courts also hear cases where the US government is one of the sides involved. They also try cases between individuals or groups from different states, and cases involving other countries or their citizens. They handle maritime (sea) cases, bankruptcy cases, and cases of patent and copyright violation. Cases for crimes which are not serious are likely to be heard in state courts. Serious crimes may be tried in either state courts or federal courts depending on the situation, for example, cases where a crime has taken place in an­other state are often heard in federal courts.

The federal court system includes district courts, courts of ap­peals, and the Supreme Court of the United States. District courts are federal courts of original jurisdiction. The US and its possessions have about 95 district courts and there are about 565 permanent district court judges. Each state has at least one such court. The federal court system also includes several specialized courts. The US Claims Court hears cases involving claims against the federal government. The Court of International trade settles disputes over import duties. Taxpayers ordered to pay additional federal income taxes may appeal to the Tax Court of the United States. Military courts, called courts-martial, have jurisdiction over offences commit­ted by members of the armed forces. The Court of Military Appeals reviews court-martial rulings. The lowest state courts are courts of limited jurisdiction which specialize in only one type of case. For example, small-claims courts try cases that involve small amounts of money. Probate or surrogate courts handle wills and disputes over inheritances. Other specialized courts include courts of domestic relations, juvenile courts, and traf­fic courts. Some of them (e.g. police courts, magistrate's courts) handle a variety of minor criminal and civil cases.

The trial courts in the US states are state or county courts which have general criminal and civil jurisdiction (comp. with British county courts which are used only for civil cases). These courts in each state include: common pleas courts and smaller in importance mu­nicipal courts and mayors' courts.

If the accused is found guilty in the trial court he (or she) has the right to appeal to a higher court. The Court of Ap­peals (also the Appellate Court) examines cases that have been brought to them by people unsatisfied with the decision of a lower court. There are 12 of these courts in the US, each dealing with cases in a particular area of the country. They determine if the law was correctly interpreted and applied in a lower court.

The final court of appeal in the US federal system and for some cases in the state courts is the US Supreme Court. It is made up of a chief justice and 8 associates, who serve for life, after being appointed by the President and approved by Congress. The accused does not have the right to be heard by the Supreme Court, but the Su­preme Court decides which cases it will hear. These cases often attract a lot of public attention. Cases which come before the Supreme Court often concern the US Constitution, such as a right to free speech. The Constitution of the US sets out how the government should be formed and what the right of the States and individuals are. It consists of seven articles and 25 amendments which were written in 1787 and finally came into use in 1789. When it was first written the rights of individuals were not included, but in 1791 ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights were added. In the US all laws that came into effect must be in agreement with the Constitution, whether they are passed at the local, state or federal level. If someone thinks a law is unconstitutional, they can ask for a judgement about the law in the courts. A law, or any deci­sion based on it, cannot remain in force if it is found by a court to be unconstitutional. Questions facing the Supreme Court are always about the constitutionality of laws or of legal actions. It was Chief Justice Marshall in 1803 who arrogated to the court the power to strike down federal law as well as state laws.

State Courts. The Constitution recognizes that the states have certain rights and authorities beyond the power of the federal government. States have the power to establish their own systems of criminal and civil laws, with the result that each state has its own laws, prisons, police force, and state court. Within each state, there are also county and city courts. Generally, state laws are quite similar, but in some areas there is great diversity. The minimum age for marriage and the sentences for murder vary from state to state. The minimum legal age for the purchase of alcohol is 21 in most states.

Federal Courts. The separate system of federal courts, which operates alongside the state courts, handles cases which arise under the U.S. Constitution or under any law or treaty, as well as any controversy to which the federal government is itself a party. Federal courts also hear disputes involving governments or citizens of different states. All federal judges are appointed for life. A case which falls within federal jurisdiction is heard first before a federal district judge. An appeal may be made to the Circuit Court of Appeals, and, possibly, in the last resort, to the highest court in the land: the U.S. Supreme Court.

Supreme Court. The Supreme Court hears cases in which someone claims that a lower court ruling is unjust or in which someone claims that Constitutional law has been violated. Its decisions are final and become legally binding. Although the Supreme Court does not have the power to make laws, it does have the power to examine actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative institutions of the government and decide whether they are constitutional. It is in this function that the Supreme Court has the potential to influence decisively the political, social, and economic life of the country. In the past, Supreme Court rulings have given new protection and freedom to minorities. The Supreme Court has nullified certain laws of Congress and has even declared actions of American presidents unconstitu­tional. The U.S. government is so designed that, ideally, the authority of the judicial branch is independent from the other branches of government. Each of the 9 Supreme Court justices (judges) is appointed by the president and examined by the Senate to determine whether he or she is qualified. Once approved, a justice remains on the Supreme Court for life. The Supreme Court justices have no obligation to follow the political policies of the president or Congress. Their sole obligation is to uphold the laws of the Constitution. Nevertheless, politics play a role in a president's selection of a Supreme Court justice. On average, a president can expect to appoint two new Supreme Court justices during one term of office. Presidents are likely to appoint justices whose views are similar to their own, with the hope that they can extend some of their power through the judicial branch.

There exist a grand jury and a petit jury in the US. A grand jury is a group of between 16 and 23 people in most states. There are 2 kinds of grand juries in the US, charging and investigatory. A char­ging jury is chosen to consider the facts about someone who is charged with a crime, and to decide whether a trial is necessary. If the grand jury finds sufficient evidence, it makes a formal accusa­tion, called an indictment, against the person. The suspect is then tried by a petit jury. An investigatory grand jury investigates (1) sus­pected dishonesty of public officials and (2) possible crime, especially organized crime.

A petit, or petty, jury is a trial jury and the most common form of jury. In a civil lawsuit, a petit jury decides who is at fault and how much money must be paid in damages. At a criminal trial, a jury of between 6 and 12 people decide whether a person is guilty or not. Until about 1970, juries consisted of 12 members and 1 or 2 alternate jurors. Today, some states use juries of as few as 6 members. The names of possible jurors are selected by the court from such sources as tax rolls, voting lists, and telephone directories. From the selected names, people are then chosen by lot and summoned for possible service on a jury. Before becoming a jury member, a person is ques­tioned by the trial judge, the opposing lawyers, or both. This proce­dure is known as voir dire (an old French term meaning literally "to speak the truth"). The attorneys may reject any person for cause.

In 1872, Massachusetts became the first state to provide sepa­rate court sessions for children. In 1899, Colorado and Illinois authorized separate children's courts. By 1925, all but two states had juvenile courts.

In 1967, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a land­mark decision regarding juvenile courts. In the Gault decision, the court ruled that the private and informal procedures used by juvenile courts had deprived many children of certain rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It ruled that children must be granted these rights, including (1) the right of children and their parents to be given adequate notice of the specific charge; (2) the right to have a lawyer in any case which may result in confinement; (3) the right to question witnesses; and (4) the right to remain silent.

Also in 1967, a special presidential commission reported that juve­nile courts had failed in their efforts to decrease juvenile delinquency. Since then, juvenile courts have used an approach much like that used in adult criminal courts. However, there is more emphasis on rehabilita­tion in the juvenile courts than in the adult correctional system.

The death penalty. Responding to public pressure to get tough with criminals, many states have been applying the death penalty as a deterrent to murder. Although few criminals were sentenced to death between 1965 and 1983, there has been a surge in recent years in the number of executions. Between 1970 and 1980, three prisoners were executed under the death penalty, and between 1980 and 1985, 47 prisoners were executed. In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty, as carried out in most states, was unconstitutional. States have since revised their death penalty laws, establishing new Court-approved pro­cedures. Supporters of the death penalty argue that it is the only appropriate punishment for sadistic murderers. Opponents of capital punishment hope to see it declared unconstitutional. They claim that there is not enough evidence to prove that murderers are deterred by the threat of execution. Crime-stopping and crime prevention are formidable tasks for law enforce­ment officials, since the social problems which aggravate violence—poverty/ unemployment, and unstable families—are likely to persist. In addition to the overcrowding in prisons, the accessibility of handguns is a major problem which further complicates the task of securing public safety.

Rights of criminal suspects. Courts have the difficult task of striking a balance between the needs of society on the one hand and the rights of the individual on the other. The Constitution's guarantee of equal justice under the law for all citizens not or guarantees the individual's right to freedom and security, but also include; the protection of the rights of criminal suspects. Among these guarantees are the protection from unreasonable search and seizure, the suspect's right decline to testify against himself/herself, the right to counsel, as well a protection from excessive bail and from cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court has devised several rules to ensure the protection of these rights, which sometimes result in a guilty suspect being released from charge. One of these rules is the controversial exclusionary rule, which excludes from the trial any evidence gained by unlawful search and seizure. Sometimes the exclusion of evidence from a trial means that some persons who are clear! guilty go free because of a technicality. The Miranda rule is another controversial; Supreme Court decision which extends the rights of criminal suspects. In the 1966 case, the Court ruled that suspects must be read their legal rights before, being questioned by police. They must be told of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning. If the police do not inform the criminal suspect of his or her rights, any evidence gained from questioning cannot be used in court.

The death penalty. Responding to public pressure to get tough with criminals, many states have been applying the death penalty as a deterrent to murder. Although few criminals were sentenced to death between 1965 and 1983, there has been a surge in recent years in the number of executions. Between 1970 and 1980, three prisoners were executed under the death penalty, and between 1980 and 1985, 47 prisoners were executed. In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty, as carried out in most states, was unconstitutional. States have since revised their death penalty laws, establishing new Court-approved pro­cedures. Supporters of the death penalty argue that it is the only appropriate punishment for sadistic murderers. Opponents of capital punishment hope to see it declared unconstitutional. They claim that there is not enough evidence to prove that murderers are deterred by the threat of execution. Crime-stopping and crime prevention are formidable tasks for law enforce­ment officials, since the social problems which aggravate violence—poverty/ unemployment, and unstable families—are likely to persist. In addition to the overcrowding in prisons, the accessibility of handguns is a major problem which further complicates the task of securing public safety.

Date: 2015-01-29; view: 1368