Courts What Is the Dual-Court

Courts

What is the dual-court system? Why do we have a dual-court system in America? Could the drive toward court unification eventually lead to a monolithic court system? Would such a system be effective?

The dual court system, of giving state and federal courts different areas of jurisdiction, is one of the most unique features of the American judicial system. The systems are parallel systems, existing side by side. For example, "Michigan courts derive power from the Michigan constitution and Michigan laws. Federal courts derive power from the U.S. Constitution and federal law" ("Michigan Court System, the Civics Institute, 2004). Cases that fall under state jurisdiction involve any cases dealing with the state constitution and law, local ordinances, disputes between two or more people within the state, or matters in which a person (including a company as well as a human being) are in contention with state regulations ("Michigan Court System, the Civics Institute, 2004). Federal jurisdiction encompasses cases involving the U.S. Constitution; federal laws, treaties, bankruptcy, admiralty or maritime law; parties who are ambassadors or other representatives of foreign countries; representatives of two or more state governments; cases involving federal government, agencies, or offices; cases involving citizens of different states or nations; or two citizens of same state fighting over land granted by another state ("Michigan Court System, the Civics Institute, 2004). "Some of the criminal law that falls under federal jurisdiction includes: terrorism, bank robbery, espionage, counterfeiting, crimes against federal properties, kidnapping, stolen cars across state lines, murder of federal employees, bombs, selling illegal weapons / narcotics" ("Michigan Court System, the Civics Institute, 2004).

The dual court system was created by the Founding Fathers to act as a check and balance within the judicial branch, and to ensure that the federal government did not encroach upon the rights of the states, and vice versa. Although the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, frequently it will refuse to hear an appeal, because it believes that the matter is one of state, rather than federal jurisdiction. No court has unlimited jurisdiction, with the American framework of justice. However, "the rules of the courtroom may vary from one district to another, and the American dual court system often leads to more than one court having authority to deliberate on a particular matter of justice" ("Chapter 10: The American Legal System and the Courts," 2007).

While the actual case may pertain to state law, because all citizens are entitled to the same rights under the federal constitution, if one or more of these rights are violated and the case is put to appeal, then the federal appellate courts may hear the controversy and rule. For example, a convicted defendant might allege that his or her conviction in violation of a state law should be overturned because the evidence obtained to convict was improperly gathered and violates his or her right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The fact that all Americans are entitled to the protections of the Bill of Rights means that there will be inevitable overlap between some of the functions of the two court systems. However, it is unlikely that one system will ever be sacrificed entirely. Also, there are cases when jurisdiction between federal and state overlap, such as "any lawsuit where citizens of different states are involved in disputes concerning at least $50,000, the person being sued can insist on federal court," and "some criminal acts that involve single events or multiple events that violate both federal and state laws simultaneously ("Michigan Court System, the Civics Institute, 2004). This also means that combining the two systems would not be feasible, especially given how the system of laws in America currently exists.

Question

Outline the various sentencing goals. Which of these goals do you find most acceptable as the primary goal of sentencing? How might your choice of goal vary with the type of offense? Can you envision any circumstances which might make your choice less acceptable?

Sentencing goals may include providing punishment levels that reflect the seriousness of the offense, affording adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, protecting the public from further crimes of the defendant, and avoiding unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar crimes (Maxfield, 2003, pp.3-4). Ultimately, the most serious result of ignoring one of these guidelines would be a sentence that did not protect the public from further crimes of the defendant. The most obvious scenario might be that of a guilty, violent murderer or rapist who was likely to commit another crime, without long-term incarceration.