Jury System Currently in the United States

¶ … jury system currently in the United States in terms of fairness and justice.

In the world of excellence and valid legality, the legal system would donate a genuine and wide procedure via which a defendant's inherent and conscious deliberation towards crime in the breaching of criminal laws would be pinpointed in an impartial way. Anyhow, theoretical proof provides suggestion that this genuine and impartial pattern of working is non-reaping. The U.S. legal system has been in a tumult of peaking censure currently. Any criminal legal pattern is an instrument society applies to implement the patterns of behavior required to save people and the community. It functions by intercepting, punishing, accusing, and putting to trial those individuals of the community who breach the basic guidelines of group life. The perpetration against law breaching individuals is patterned to be servile to three reasons beyond the urgent disciplinary one. It curtails intimidating individuals from the community, it discourages others from criminal attitude, and it provides society a choice to take effort to change law breaching individuals into law-adhering individuals.

What most prominently differentiates the pattern of one country from that of another are the limits and the attire of protection if provides individuals in the pattern of concluding that the person is guilty and perpetrating sentence. Our pattern of justice voluntarily gives away efficacy and even in impact in order to save local independence and to save the separate entity. Sometimes it may look like giving away too much. Bearing semblance both in the cases of civil and criminal cases, the public has blamed juries of being not updated, biased or just blatant blunder. We come to know of these grievances particularly after important trials. The Simpson case may give a suggestion about the discrepancies of our legal system; it has refurbished the argument in America about the pattern of trial by members of justice. It is a pattern marked with stark contrasts. While most Americans encompass the suggestion of trial by jury, many are disappointed by its existent outcomes. While we revel in mirth when it is concerned with democratic authority of the jurors, majority of the people no longer have faith in the proclamation of justice that is attained. And while there is wide acclamation that our legal pattern is the standard one in the globe, majority of us resort to extreme deliberations to abstain from legal servility. Jurors are prone to strong biases which are fluctuating with the meticulously unbiased part played by those who are asked to pinpoint the matter of the ascertained involvement in crime of accused persons. In majority of the cases this bias may not be obvious, not can it be influentially evicted.

A defendant's features have a concrete impact on a juror's conclusion arriving pattern. It also seems to be that, for totally inappropriate purposes, jurors will in some circumstances in fact act in accordance to the defendants. The ever rising intricate nature of trials, mixed with the fact that those most entitled to give an ear to this proof seldom accommodate the position of juries, has given rise to dilapidation in the influence of juries in the legal pattern. In majority of cases, jury trials have under evolved into a tussle for the soft corner of the juries resultantly giving rise to results that may end up leaning on the guts rather than fundamental legal rational. Enrollers of the bench, the bar, academia, and legislative entities require to recognize that long time practices are influencing jury functioning. Juries boost the expenditure of criminal adjudication due to the fact that time that must be spared to give allowance to take in the proof and expand the appropriate law to them. The extent of jury trials gives rise to closely packed criminal courts and therefore gives rise to the occurrence of time loss in the conclusion of criminal cases. Undue time loss is itself a chief causal factor of lack of efficiency in the ruling side of the criminal justice.

A basic matter that is face-to-face with court pattern all through the United States currently is that of sufficient and timely financing so that state and federal courts can implement their constitutional rules. Sufficient financing influences the judicial branch's capability to give to the public the servilities citizens have arrived to anticipate of courts- the giving of equal justice and timely conclusion of arguments. In the regard to both influence and righteousness to individuals, justice should be fast and steady, recurrently in city courts today it is, on the contrary fast or failing. Inconspicuously, the thrust of numbers has influenced a surge of adventurous moldings in the criminal pattern. Non-traditional shortcuts have been applied. The conclusion arriving pattern has often turned out to be that of a routine. All through the pattern of significance of separate judgment and prudence, in variation from mentioned rules and procedures, has found a new peak. Effectually, much conclusion arriving is being implemented on a ruling rather than on a legal basis. Thus, an introspection of how the criminal justice system functions and accordance to moldings required to make it more influential and just must pinpoint on the level to which inconspicuous, ruling patterns take off from conspicuous orthodox ones, and on the wish of that taking off.

2. Compare and contrast national and state government (California) in terms of organization and operations. What are the primary roles of municipal governments in Southern California?

The constitution of United States that was adopted in 1787 has designated the country as a federal republic. It has three branches - executive, legislative and judicial. It is a federation of 50 states in a union and the District of Columbia has been designated as the seat of the union. The structure of the national government, its powers and activities has been outlined in the constitution which has also defined the relationship between the state governments and the national governments. The total powers are divided between the state governments and the national government. The states are further divided into counties, townships, cities and villages. Each unit of these local authorities also has their own elected government. The complete powers of the federal government in the United States as well as its functions are divided among the three branches of the executive, legislative and judiciary. The definition of the legislative branch is given in article 1 of the constitution and the power of this branch is with the Congress of the United States. The executive powers are defined in article 2 of the constitution and this rests with the President. Article 3 gives the powers of the judiciary to the Supreme Court and the subordinate courts whose establishment has to be decided by the Congress. In this system, the powers of the three branches are separated and no branch depends on the other and there is a system of checks and balances so that no branch can take over all the power. This is to protect the rights and liberties of the citizens. This gives the President the authority to veto bills even if they are approved by the Congress and the individuals who are to serve in the judiciary are nominated by the President. On the other side, the Supreme Court can decide on the constitutionality of laws passed by the Senate or actions taken by the President. In turn, the Congress has the right of impeachment of the President and the justices and judges of the Federal Courts.

The pattern of the federal government is followed by the sate governments and they also have the powers shared between the executive, legislative and judicial branches. In general parlance it can be said that the matters which lie totally within the borders of the state become the concern of the state government. These are matters like internal communications, regulations of property, industry, business and public utilities, the criminal code of the state and the working conditions of citizens within the state. The only control that the Federal government has is that the state cannot adopt laws that contradict or violate the Federal constitution. Laws or treaties. This has led to a situation where there is considerable overlap between the state and federal legislative powers. Gradually the federal government has been taking over greater responsibility in the egard to health, education, public welfare, transportation, housing and urban development. The programs in these areas now have to be organized with the cooperation between the federal government and the state government. In the state of California, the legislative consists of the State Assembly, the Senate of the State and some other departments. The main powers of making laws in the state lies with this branch. In a single two-year session, this requires the legislature to propose, analyze and debate over 6,000 bills. The activities of the State Legislature is governed by existing rules and regulations to cover all aspects of the processes of legislation. The members of the legislature also have legal restrictions on their activities and associations.

The relationship between governance and growth in a metropolitan area is exemplified by the operations of metropolitan Southern California. In some aspects it has greater unity than other metropolitan areas. The total system lies within one state and only five counties. The economic aspects and environmental systems however operate more on a regional scale, and this is gradually being recognized by the people and the public policy makers. The entire region has more than 170 municipalities and more than 1,000 other specialized units for local government. Large areas within the region are now governed by groups of small municipalities. These units think of themselves only as "niche players" in trying to get the maximum possible benefits but do not historically cooperate on matters within the jurisdiction of each other. This leads to some economic and environmental issues being dealt on the total regional basis, but being handled by different governmental agencies operating on a regional level which are narrowly focused and have overlapping powers. (A Landscape Potrait of Southern California's structure of Government and Growth) If an attempt is made to increase the role of the regional government is made, it will be opposed by the local level. This has been shown up in some researches to be true particularly for Southern California voters and municipalities. The residents of Southern California support the regional government only when the particular circumstances suit their interests and when they feel that it will not cause loss of local control. In general the residents oppose the consolidation of city and the counties, and think negatively about the regional government. About 70% of the population is not in favor of a regional government with many counties in it. (Baldassare, 46)

3. Please describe the ways the president. obviously and subtle, influences economic policy and foreign policy. Should we elect presidents differently than we do now, through the Electoral College?

The chief foreign policy-makers, from the times of Washington, are the presidents and the administrators for that policy and their principal advisers are their secretaries of state. Presidents seldom wanted Senate's advice even though the Senate continued to approve treaties. However, the Senate has approved about 70% of the treaties put forward with slight or no alteration. Presidents played a major role in the foreign policy-making process throughout the 19th and into the 20th century. They entered into agreements with their executive counterparts in other countries with no official treaties, received ambassadors and acknowledged countries. To protect American lives and welfare, presidents, as commanders in chief, also positioned armed forces. Navy and Marines were put into action by President Thomas Jefferson to strike back against the Barbary pirates, who intimidated American shipping. The Army was directed by the President James Polk into the unclear territory with Mexico to fortify what Texans thought to be their equitable border. President Abraham Lincoln established a barricade of South by calling the militia. Congress decided not to resist these presidential actions even though they can. However, members of Congress felt free, as they frequently do, to denounce when a policy was not successful. Congress took part in an active policy-setting role only in the areas of trade and tariffs. At the start of the 20th century in the administrations of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, the country's participation in the international field started to increase. Both presidents used their "bully pulpits" to try to gather public support for them and planned new international initiatives for the United States. While Wilson was unsuccessful in getting approval of the Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I, and for U.S. participation in the League of Nations, Roosevelt was successful in obtaining sanction to build the Panama Canal. However, in foreign affairs, an extensive presidential privilege has been definitely established. (Wayne, 14)