Nklenske Courts the Dual Court

Nklenske

Courts

The Dual Court System of the United States

The United States judicial branch operates under a dual-court system at several two different levels, essentially making it a dual-branched, dual court system. At one end is the separation between the federal court system and the state system. At the other end is the separation between trial courts and appellate courts. Finally, to be technically correct, there is a separation between criminal and civil court systems.

The first system of dual courts is the state and federal systems. The federal judicial system will hear any case dealing with a violation of federal law or a federal issue. Typically these will include such issues as federal crimes, especially drug-related, cases involving the federal government and cases involving federal law in some way. For example, if a mail delivery person in Idaho gets injured on the case this will be a federal workers' compensation claim because the mail delivery person is a federal employee.

Likewise, if someone is charged with delivering drugs across state lines, they will be charged with a federal crime, despite any state rules that were broken.

On the other hand, the state judicial systems deal with any matter related to state law or occurrences within the state that do not have federal jurisdiction. (Origins of the Federal Judiciary, p. 201).

What makes this level of the dual system interesting is when an issue involves two states, or when two states have jurisdiction over a matter. In such a situation, the federal courts will be given jurisdiction. Likewise, in a situation where there is a question of whether a state law is constitutional, the federal court system will gain jurisdiction.

This second example brings us to the second level of the dual court system. At both the state and federal level there are trial courts and courts of appeals. The trial courts are the finders of fact and make the initial decision of a case. After that decision is made, every individual has a right to appeal. The appellate courts will examine the record for errors in law or abuses of discretion made by the trial court. After the decision of the appellate court, the case may be taken to the supreme court of the state if it deals with an unsettled matter of law. Finally, the United States Supreme Court may hear an appeal of a state matter whenever the issue involves a matter of national interest or national law and policy. (Origins of the Federal Judiciary, p. 145).

The need of the death penalty in capital cases.

Capital cases are crimes involving a serious federal offense.

The federal government, and a handful of state's, use the death penalty as a sentencing option for the jury to give if an individual is found guilty.

Those in favor of the death penalty argue that it works as a deterrence for others to commit capital crimes. Further, some argue that nothing short of death would be just in a case of taking another's life. In order to have a just system of justice, these individuals will argue, the punishment must equal the crime otherwise there will be no faith in the justice system and the entire concept will collapse into chaos.

People who oppose the death penalty will argue that the option of death as a potential punishment has done absolutely nothing to deter capital crimes. Statistics in states that employ the death penalty consistently show that crime rates have not gone down as a result of the death penalty. Further, as was seen in the state of Illinois, the death penalty is not always just as often times judgments are wrong and innocent people are put to death. Likewise, if the system unjustly punishes people, there can be no faith in the system. (Turrow, et. al.).

A plausible answer to this question is that no, the death penalty is not needed in capital punishment cases. Life imprisonments will serve the same general need, but not risk the unjust killing of innocent individuals. Notice, however, that this argument does not say that the death penalty should be abolished, but only that it is not needed. Granted, the possibility of death for the killing of another does have deterrent powers and gives a sense of equal justice.

Effects of the incarceration boom.

More people are currently incarcerated than at any other time.

In fact, prisons are so over crowded that it is now common practice for judges to simply use deferred sentences and probation as a means of sentencing. Further, the costs of housing so many criminals is one that many states simply cannot afford. As a result, much of the prison industry is being outsourced to private corporations.

The net effect of the incarceration boom is two fold. First, there's the lack of meaningful punishment, or justice, due to the fact that there is not enough room in the jails and not enough money in the budgets to build more space. The result: criminals are given less severe sentences and, in many cases, remain a threat to the public. Further, there is no deterrence factor when one knows that the worse they will get for a relatively small crime is a fine and probation.

Second, with the resulting privatization of the prison systems, there is a subsequent placement of profit over justice. Like any corporation, the private prison industry is in the business for one reason only: to make a profit. The way these corporations make their money is by having prisoners. Clearly, the more prisoners they have the more money they can make. The result is that there is an incentive for the prisons to keep prisoners incarcerated for longer than need be. Further, they have an incentive to cut costs by such means as overcrowding, which can violate prisoner's rights.

The purpose of the national and state prison systems is to carry out the justice of our judicial system. This should be its only purpose. Once other interests get involved, such as the need to make a profit, the foundation of justice is quickly eroded by these competing interests.

Prisoners and the Bill of Rights

The Bill of Rights contains specific constitutional protections that every citizen is given. However, when one is a prisoner, whether one still has a right to these protections becomes debatable. For example, many states do not allow prisoner's to vote. However, the right to vote is not a specifically protected right under the Bill of Rights and, therefore, an argument can be made that it can be taken away (although a free speech argument could be made).