Legal System of America

Criminal Justice Agency

The American legal system is very systematic and works amazingly well. It's complicated given its intricacy as its framework is argumentative. The Supreme Court sometimes changes the law as it holds that authority. The Supreme Court decides which laws are to be upheld and which are to be altered. Learning the court system can be a tough ask but not an impossible one. In this research paper, the aim is to break down the American law into layman language. It will start from legal system of U.S. And shift to court systems. Then different kinds of courts will be examined whilst examining their separate duties.

Prelude

The constitution is responsible for the entire American legal system. The American constitution is the ultimate law on American soil. The public is bound by this American constitution as it shapes their actions accordingly. The American public is answerable under the penalty of law and should profess to uphold it. Rule of law is another foundation which means each American citizen must obey the constitution. The constitution can't be altered and changed by common population and those in the upper echelon of government. Aristotle created the rule of law which was taken by United States of America (Cooray, 2010).

The constitution doesn't have the power to force laws and regulation on a nation. Its rather a piece of paper. It is the job of the institutions to do so. The government agencies and law enforcement agencies ensure that constitution is being upheld. Court system is one of them as it describes and interpret laws. Decisions are made by the supreme court on the basis of the constitution (Baum, 2013).

Constitution is just a piece of paper because it's the institution which upholds the American constitution and its bylaws. The court system is included in it. The court system ensures that law is upheld in an honorable manner keeping pubic contentment in view (Baum, 2013).

The constitution and state laws develop these state courts. The Supreme Court is the biggest court in America. Certain states have Court of Appeals. Under these appeal courts are state trial courts. Certain are termed as circuit courts / district courts. The state courts are responsible for taking care of contract cases, contract cases, personal injury cases as well as family law. In case, they are interpreted in conjunction with federal law / American constitution, then Supreme Court deals with them. The Supreme Court has the power to dismiss or hear the case. The federal court is responsible for dealing with laws, constitution law, American treaties, public ministers, American ambassadors and conflicts between two states (Baum, 2013).

Civil law and criminal law differ handled by the courts. The civil law is between two people (Neubauer and Fradella, 2011). In case of criminal law, the repercussions can affect the entire society on the whole (Neubauer and Fradella, 2011).

The government oversees the criminal cases while the civil cases are overseen by private parties. Then there is the difference in sentencing. In case of civil cases, a particular period in jail is given as punishment (Neubauer and Fradella, 2011). The law enforcement agencies are aware of these segments of the courts. So laws translate accordingly under both cases. With the passage of time, the laws of a society governing them alter. Hence, right and wrong alter correspondingly. Hence, the law enforcement agencies need to adjust to change as well (Baum, 2013).

Society creates and disposes its own laws. Once upon a time, having sex with two men was deemed as a major crime. These days, it is deemed as a legal act not to be penalized. Hence the laws change accordingly (Reichel, 2008).

Certain states in the U.S. have made same sex marriages legal. This being said, in the state of California, obtaining prescription marijuana is perfectly legal. The federal law doesn't allow it for that matter. The law enforcement agencies have come to terms with it. Now they are prone to adjust to change as it comes with the passage of time (Reichel, 2008).

Certain states allow homosexual marriages. In the state of California, it's certainly legal to take marijuana but in some states, it's illegal. The federal law doesn't allow it. The law enforcement agencies permit it now. The point being that law enforcement agencies deal with changes in the society with the passage of time (Reichel, 2008).

According to the Article III of American constitution, the federal government has a judicial branch. The Supreme Court has been vested with judicial power in United States, not to mention the inferior courts which Congress establish and ordain. It also says that courts have jurisdiction on the common public in their states accordingly. The law dictates the court to provide justice in American land according to the constitution. It fortifies the American court system to uphold the constitution and law in America. According to the law, the trial will be held in that particular state where crime was committed. In any case, otherwise congress will decide (Barak, 2008).

There are many kinds of court. The biggest court is obviously the Supreme Court and after that is the state court. The Supreme Court deals with the crime under the U.S. constitution / federal law. The state courts deal with the cases in which cases violate the U.S. constitution or other laws with in American shores (Barak, 2008).

In a court of law, the prosecutor represents the state's interest where the aim is prove the defendant guilty of the crime and shutdown the case with plausible evidence. The defendant's lawyer on the other hand is disproving all the evidence on the contrary. In the end, the judge decides whether the evidence sinks reasonably well or otherwise skating on thin ice. In case, the defendant is proven guilty, then the second stage involves the sentence which is decided by the judge or the jury (Barak, 2008).

Enter the appellate court where the defendant can file for an appeal and overturn the sentence given to him. The appellate court examines the case on the whole including the proceedings in the trial court. The witnesses aren't allowed in the appellate court. For instance, when a person is found guilty of theft, he is arrested by the policemen. In the state of Virginia, he appears before a magistrate and a bond is set. Afterwards he is sent to a court if law for preliminary hearing. In this court appearance, the judge decides whether he should attain a bond and provide a window of opportunity for the defendant to have his own lawyer. The state appoints a lawyer for those impoverished individuals who can't afford the services of a lawyer (Posner, 2008).

The consequent stage for the person is to talk about his pending case with his lawyer. They contemplate whether to admit guilty or enter plea bargain. The lawyer will examine all the evidence to the contrary and work accordingly. The lawyer will then decide whether it's useful or futile to build a case against his client. In case the defendant decides to have a jury trial, then lawyer, defendant, jury and prosecutor meet in court to select a proper jury. People are taken from the local society and questioned by the lawyers to note their worthiness (Posner, 2008).

Twelve people are selected from this group with six jurors to examine the case. In case, the defendant wants a judge then judge appears instead of the panel of jury (Posner, 2008).

People from selected from the local society. They appear in court on a day-to-day basis while being questioned by the lawyers. In the end, twelve people are selected from the local community. There are six alternate jurors for hearing the case. In case, the defendant doesn't select a jury, then a judge will preside over the trial and decide the result (Posner, 2008).

In a court of law, the legal evidence is shown to the judge by the prosecutor in an attempt to prove his innocence while on the other hand the defendant's lawyer proves otherwise. The judge / jury in the end decide whether to convict him guilty of his crime and sentence him accordingly (Carp, R et al., 2007).

For instance, the defendant is proven guilty of theft and the jury decides five years in jail. He is escorted to jail where he will carry out his sentence. His lawyer will file for an appeal to change the decision. The court can change the decision when the court under it made an error in judgment. In state of Virginia, the petition is given to courts for appeals. The petition demands for the courts to take action. Apart from that, an appeal is given in the absence of an argument. The parties can discuss the error made by the court. If the request for an appeal is denied then the lawyer needs to visit in person and demand an appeal and inquire reasons for not obtaining an appeal. The public is upset with the court system these days as they call for a reform. People think that courts are so slow and take too much time in shutting down a case, while others think they are too harsh on an accused. This invokes therapeutic jurisprudence. The therapeutic jurisprudence is the influence of law and justice system on the common populace's emotion, mentality and behavior (Neubauer and Fradella, 2011). Judges and lawyers think that their actions will have a negative impact on the society and feel uncomfortable. A small society can comprehend their own inhabitant's action better than the judges. Now such factors are being played in the court deciding the direction judges should take (Carp, R et al., 2007).

That's a positive thing for the justice system. The society adapts and shapes itself but should the government. Once upon a time, it was a crime for two people to have sex. Now it's deemed as a legal act. A wrong ruling by the court can result in a backlash from the society. Hence, the courts must be careful (Carp, R et al., 2007).

The society will understand if a mother fights in her self-defense to protect her offspring's even if the court thinks otherwise. A wrong conviction may not seem to agree with that society as people are already suspicious about the justice system. The court system is a court acting on its own and making the society a better place. Seldom justice is postponed but it doesn't mean it's denied. It's become a norm for people to say that since they demand a fast trial as life is so fast these days. Time is needed to defend a case properly in front of a judge (Carp, R et al., 2007).

On the other hand, so much delay violates the sixth amendment of the United States of America constitution. It gives the American public the right to a fair and legal trial. If the trial is extended or delayed unnecessarily then the case is usually dismissed. The quotation 'Justice delayed is justice denied' holds for all as American public should receive fair trial by the American legal system. The meaning is by postponing a trial too much is keeping the victim in jail or under pressure while stealing their right to live an innocent life otherwise. A court hearing is a tough time for concerned individuals and their loved ones. The process should end within a set time frame (Carp et al., 2007).

Lengthy trials are often advantageous for both the lawyers and prosecutors because the prosecutors can build a solid case against the defendant while the lawyers can earn money as they are paid by the hour. The defense can look over deeply if law enforcement may have made a mistake during their investigations. After all, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. What about ending a trial quickly? The speedy trial can't be that effective and certainly not trustworthy. Speedy trials are conducted when a person is arrested and accused of a crime against the state. Postponing the trial for a year can violate the sixth amendment (Scheb, 2010).

Often delays are required in a court of law because the case is so intricate and often witness needs more time to solidify his case. In case if defense hasn't mentioned time take to reach a trial then it's at fault clearly. The case is otherwise for a case if the lawyer is delaying. Seldom, the case are delayed because there aren't enough judges to hear cases, hence trials can get extended. If the precinct is swarming with criminals and law enforcement agencies are pushing to prosecute every case, then the case should act accordingly. The writer thinks that there are more criminals in the streets than in jails. Similar is the case with judges in courts. Some delays can be tolerated while others can't be. Justice should be hastened but neither delayed either. The society and judges can't keep the witnesses waiting for the innocent to be held up. The writer is of the opinion that conditions differ according to different cases and no one's guilty until proven. Justice is equal and fair for all and when a case is shut, the concerned personnel should feel that it was the right decision. There shouldn't be an air of ending the trial too quickly (Scheb, 2010).

The role of the prosecutor is to represent the state. Their job is to advise the law enforcement agencies on which charges to file against the defendant (Nuebauer and Fradella, 2011). They can advise on bail to the judge presiding. They may also contemplate on the charges to be filed against a person (Nuebauer and Fradella, 2011).

The law enforcement agencies think that bringing up charges against the defendant is enough for shutting a case while the prosecutors think otherwise (Nuebauer and Fradella, 2011). If police statement is skating on thin ice then the case may end in a stalemate. The prosecutor must have the correct information and statement to shut a case. In some states, the prosecutors and law enforcement agencies are working side by side in bringing down criminals as they are open and cooperative amongst themselves (Nuebauer and Fradella, 2011).

The police officer is often a prime witness during car accidents and petty crimes. They are sworn and expected to highlight the events as they unfold. The officers have intricate and detailed knowledge about the crime occurring. Apart from that they have more knowledge than investigators and commonplace witness who observe with not-so-keen eye. There must be a strong working relationship between law enforcement agencies and prosecution as opinions certainly differ, but the prime objective here is to give justice and a fair trial. People view and think differently and that's perfectly fine. Every angle is important and so is communication between fellow law personnel to make society a better place (Humbach, 2007).

The police officers need to be aware of the crime and appear as witness during its course. They must take valuable notes while investigating. Note the vehicles driven by the accused in this case. They should jot down statements from people involved and check their credibility. The date, person and time of people involved must be taken in consideration. The writing must be legible and easier to comprehend. Police officers should remember that their work will be under heavy scrutiny (Humbach, 2007).

The officer must be present for a preliminary hearing which decides whether a case is supposed to be fought in a court of law for the crime committed (Nuebauer and Fradella 2011). He might be able to testify in front of a grand jury. The grand jury decides whether or not to charge the accused of a crime (Nuebauer and Fradella 2011).

The police officers should be investigating mentally as well during the course of a trial and converse with their fellow officers at the same time. They can place the events one by one. They should place the pieces of the puzzle piece by piece and testifying new evidence as it comes (Humbach, 2007).