Dual-Court System - Research Paper Example

State courts reserve the authority to hear criminal and civil cases related to state constitutional issues and laws (Neubaeur & Fradella, 2010). In various respects, the dual court system structure was designed to offer a certain degree of independence to local governments, and at the same time ensuring proper judicial checks and balance. Dividing-up administrative roles of justice and giving a number of responsibilities to the states is often regarded as both competent and a reflection of varied citizens’ diverse needs.

Preserving an overarching federal system in the dual court system ensures that no single state legislates in excess of the standards required by the federal system (Neubaeur & Fradella, 2010). The constitution gives some supremacy to the federal government and set aside the rest for the states. State and federal governments both need their court system to interpret and apply the laws. The dual court system enables the two to spell out the control of their respective court systems. Court unification refers to the degree to which state and federal judicial systems in the United States establish one level of appellate and trial courts controlled from the top by a single individual or institution.

The drive towards unification of the courts would not lead to a monolithic court system. This is for the reason that this would give the Federal court system excessive control while state legislative would make sound decisions on the matters concerning people’s needs and local affairs. The system is too complex and such a move will not result into a lasting solution. The state legislature performs better when making right decisions concerning local affairs (Cole &Smith, 2006). Further, courts are an important feature of the criminal justice system.

It is logical to sustain separate systems inclusive of the court, corrections, and the police, locally at the state and federal levels depending on the circumstances. If there were solely one correctional organization and massive police force dealing with a monolithic court system, there will be minimal effectiveness (Cole & Clear, 2010). All criminal activity needs the presence of a judge and ruling after a person has been arrested. For this reason, it is far more effectual for each of the numerous locations in the entire nation to have a municipal court system.

Judges have specified sentencing guidelines and philosophical rationales when presenting a judgment over presented facts. They include just deserts, that is, denunciation and retribution; incapacitation, restitution, rehabilitation, and deterrence (Rossi & Berk, 1997). If I were a judge, my sentencing goals and philosophical rationale would base on just deserts. This is for the reason that just deserts rationale imposes sentences and the amount of this sentence is established by the offense itself rather than any other reason, particularly not the offences to be made in future.

Further, just deserts rationale and sentencing goal simply justifies a sentence on the basis that wrongdoing deserves punishment that is equivalent to the wrongdoing. Basing on the fact, just deserts uses punishment for illegal behavior, the focus is on the offender himself; for the guilty alone, and only for the offence. I would choose on this approach because it covers both a retributive component if that