Access to Justice and Public Funded Legal Support - Coursework Example

Legal System Legal System Introduction A legal system is a structure for interpreting and enforcing laws ina country.1 It includes a jury system, a bail, the patent system, a tax system, an electoral system, and the law. A jury system is a system use for determining facts in a lawsuit. The function of a jury varies between criminal and civil cases. In a criminal lawsuit, the jury determines the questions of facts and questions of law. For instance, it determines whether a particular blow killed a person and whether that particular killing is a manslaughter or murder. A patent system is a system use for protecting the rights of inventors while a tax system is used to assess issues concerning taxes. An electoral system looks at issues about democracy. The law is the foundation of the legal system. As pointed out above, a legal system interprets and enforces laws. The laws do not affect a particular group of people in a society. Laws are created to influence the actions of persons and what ought to be done to people who have breached the laws in a society. Therefore, the legal system ought to uphold fairness. Every individual in a society ought to be treated equally and fairly as stated in the laws of the land. The legal system should ensure justice for a victim of crime and ensure that the perpetrators of that particular crime are rehabilitated well and as required by the law. Legal Professionals (First Report) Democracy is a system of government. It is a type of government, which involves its citizens in decisions making on affair affecting the nation the government belongs. The government is made up of the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive. Therefore, all these arms of government ought to be democratic by promoting equality of privileges and rights2. However, in the judiciary or the legal system, democracy is usually thought to mean self-ruling or independence of the legal system. Independence of the judiciary and individual judges is very vital in a democracy. It ensures that the judges are impartial and are independent of any external pressure. The legislature, the executive, pressure groups, individual litigants, the media, and the self-interest or other judges can influence the judiciary. Elimination of improper influence from these and other sources ensures that judges decides their cases fairly and based on the law thereby raising the confidence of the public on the judiciary. Relevant law and facts will be the sole basis of judge’s decision thus ensuring that judges discharge their constitutional responsibility to offer impartial and fair justice. In addition, it will also show that justice has been done thus encouraging the public to be confident with their legal system. Just like the United Kingdom, most countries promote the independence of the legal system. For example, in U.S there are judicial branches of the state and federal governments, which are separate from the legislative and executive branches. Judicial independence of the judicial branches of the state and the federal governments has been thus ensured as they alone control the administration of the courts. For example, in the federal judiciary, the Judicial Conference that is made up of the Chief Justice and judges from each region of the U.S has administrative responsibility for all courts. Its key authority is to make policies for administering the judicial branch of the federal government. Several committees that are made of federal judges and sometimes, state court attorneys and judges assist the Judicial Conference in various activities. Apart from the Judicial Conference, there are also the Administrative Office of U.S Courts, which manage the daily operations of the Courts and the Federal Judicial Center that trains and educate judges and court personnel. The U.S Sentencing Commission is another independent judicial body that has the function of developing advisory guidelines for federal judges who have the function of imposing criminal sentences. In many states, the state Supreme Court has the overall administrative responsibility for the court system of the state it belongs. The Chief Justice of the state Supreme Court chooses the director of the state court administrative office. The President of the U.S usually nominates people who are members of his/her political party to be U.S Supreme Court, district, and circuit judges. The president later appoints them if they are approved by a popular vote in the U.S Senate.3 Once they have been appointed, they serve for a lifetime and their salaries cannot be reduced. Federal judges can only be removed from office through an impeachment process. Only a few judges who were found to have committed serious misconduct have been impeached in the United States. Based on the legal systems of the U.S, UK and other countries throughout the world, many countries have promoted the independence of their legal systems. The promotion is important as judges are left to decide cases, fairly and without improper influence from external forces. Independence of the legal system is thus very important and part of the promotion of democracy. However, equality of privileges and rights should also be promoted, as they are part of the features of democracy. Through the promotion of these features in the legal system, the democratic rights of diverse people in the society will be promoted. The proposal of Hale, Deputy Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ought to be executed for this to be done. According to Hale, the society is diverse. People differ in the society. For example, there are women, men, and people from different religions groups, ethnicity, and races. Therefore, to be fair to the needs of the different people, Hale suggests that the judiciary be created to reflect the society as a whole and not just a very small section of it. According to sociologists, anthropologists, educationists, political scientists, and social psychologists, people experience socialization process in the societies. Young or new members of a society adopt habits and skills that make them acceptable members during socialization.4 Socialization explains the differences between people from different groups and organizations. Through socialization, people adopt behavior and worldview that define them and determine the way they act. According to a sociologist by the name Carol Gilligan, the moral development of boys and girls differ. According to her, boys use formal rules to define what is wrong and right while girls rely on a responsibility and care responsibility perspective. The difference between boys and girls is due to different socialization processes, which they experience. According to George Mead, social experiences create an individual’s self-concept. People find meaning in different actions because people exchange symbols as they interact. People understand themselves by understanding the point of view of others. Infants develop the sense of identity by imitation as they have limited social experiences. Based on Mead’s argument, the difference between boys and girls can be said to be the outcome of their different social experiences. Boys and girls experience different treatments thus leading to their differences. Due to the factual existence of socialization process, people in the society differ from each other. For example, Muslims and Christians differ on most issues about the family. Most Christians consider polygamy wrong while many Muslims consider it acceptable. Therefore, due to socialization, people have different ways of understanding and defining the world. The differences in perceptions can influences people to define the laws differently thereby offering different judgments. For instance, a judge can be influenced by his/her faith. Usually, people think that the legal system is secular. However, this idea is impossible as judgments usually involve moral evaluation. Even though metaphysics and religions are usually considered unnecessary in the legal system, judges continue to use values and ideas, which they derive from their religious understanding of cosmos and the self. Therefore, even though judges try to rid themselves of the influence of their societies, they find it hard or impossible as the ideas, which they have acquired from the society, have formed their perceptions. It is thus necessary to create a legal system that reflects the society as a whole to avoid favoritism and discrimination. In spite of this need, many countries have not created legal systems that can handle the needs of diverse people of the society without discrimination and favoritism. However, the UK has started this process. Apart from consideration of basic qualifications, the appointment of magistrates in the UK is also guided by the need for a balance between women and men, political affiliation, and minority ethnics, and others. In the U.S, diversity is not considered. Even though selection methods of judges differ from state to state, the most common methods of selection are by popular election and commission nomination. In commission nomination method, a governor of a state appoints judges from a list of legislators, judges, lay citizens, and lawyers that is provided by an independent body. When a popular election is used, selection can be non-partisan or partisan. In these two methods, no measures have been put up to ensure that a legal system that reflects diversity in the society is created. The lack of this consideration has led to a lack of confidence in the judiciary by some people in the society. For example, after the trial of George Zimmerman for killing of Trayvon Martin, many people in the Black community in the U.S were not happy. Many said that favoritism and discrimination formed the basis of decision-making.5 Access to Justice and Public Funded Legal Support (Second Report) Legal aid is a way of offering a lawyer to an individual who could not otherwise afford one. Legal aid is thus important. It guarantees justice by ensuring that there is impartiality in the legal system6. Legal aids enable defendants to receive counsel and any other necessary assistance thus ensuring that he/she is fairly tried. Legal aid has had a long history in the United Kingdom. In Wales and England, the Legal Aid and Advice Act of 1949 established it.7 Today, the Access to Justice Act of 1999 and the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act of 2012 govern legal aid8. Since these and other acts were established, legal assistances have been provided to people in many types of criminal cases and civil cases, which include family cases. Personal injury cases and cases associated with running of businesses are excluded. Legal aid is usually offered freely to the unemployed who lack assets and savings. Legal aid has thus assisted a large number of people to receive fair trials. However, despite it widespread importance, the government of the United Kingdom enforced civil legal aid cuts in April 2013. The government plans to cut £2 billion of legal aid budget by 2018, by cutting £220 million each year. Even though the government’s plan could have been good, they have been several drastic challenges associated with the cuts. According to the Probation and Family Court union NAPO, lawyers were not present in 18 percent of cases in the UK before the cuts. The figure rose to 42 percent by the end of 2013 after cuts were enforced. The rise was due to the inability of most people to pay for lawyers thus forcing them to represent themselves in courts. The high number of people representing themselves disrupted the cases as many people who try to represent them failed to do so in the right and expected manner. According to Frederick Wilmot-Smith, the increase in the number of litigants in person challenges the legal personnel as a legal system is designed for lawyers. Litigants in person consume a lot of time, as judges must first determine whether their arguments are relevant legally. For example, in a Family Court at Halifax, West Yorkshire, a father was in a dispute over overnight custody with a mother. A solicitor named Emma H. Jones represented the father in the case. The mother was representing herself. Due to lack of legal assistance on the part of the mother, the case took a long period to end. The mother did not understand court documents and procedure. She made discussion in court very difficult and impossible. A judge convinced the mother to accept an overnight contact resuming six months later. Apart from delaying court case and causing many people to represent themselves in courts, many lawyers lost their jobs. According to Sir Ivan Lawrence, the protest of lawyers was meant to tell Chris Grayling that £215 million cut to annual criminal legal aid budget would cause barristers and solicitors to lack jobs. According to him, solicitors and barristers are facing average fee cuts of 17.5 percent and 6 percent respectively. The cessation of the cut was thus important to the solicitors and barristers and to individuals who want to be defended. However, the key issue that was importance to lawyers, campaigners, and trade unionists was the legal representation of individuals in courts. According to Matt Foot, Justice Alliance co-founder, their fight was not about money but against wrong decisions of the government that have negative impacts on the needy people in the society. Sir Ivan Lawrence claim that he was ashamed of the government seemed outrageous and out of point as he is thought to be part of the establishment. However, even though Sir Ivan served as a Conservative MP for Burton from 1974 to 1997, the cuts did not start when he was a leader. Sir Ivan was surprised by the current state of affairs. According to him, the government had taken advantage of people silence to execute a plan that was detrimental to the legal system. Sir Ivan said that during his time, he did not support the strike because they were not necessary. The protest of 7 March 2014 was justifiable according to Sir Ivan as it was aimed at ensuring that the government stops destroying the legal system. Sir Ivan understands the important of the legal aid to people. Before he became a Tory, he was a lawyer. He defended Ronnie Kray in 1969 in his murder trial over the killing of George Cornell in Blind Beggar pub in Whitechapel.9 Cornell was a member of Richardson gang, a rival group to that which Kray was a member. Before his death, Cornell is reported to have called Kray “a fat poofter.” According Sir Ivan, Kray retained respect for his counsel even after he was duly convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. Sir Ivan said that Kray was very grateful for his assistance and thus wished him well in his political life. Almost all of Sir Ivan’s clients were London’s notorious gang members in 1960s. For instance, apart from Kary, Sir Ivan defended Dennis Nilsen. Nonetheless, Sir Ivan presented the case of a client as best as he could. He rarely sought to understand the mind of a criminal. Instead, he presented the case as offered to him by the client as according to him, a lawyer’s personal feelings about his/her client should not influence an individual. Sir Ivan said that if a client who seems guilty tells him that he is not guilty, it is not his function to determine the fact. His function is to argue the client’s case in an attempt to make him/her win the case. However, in case he finds out that there are a lot of valid evidence against his client, Sir Ivan would advise his client to plead guilty so that the a third of the sentence can be reduced. Sir Ivan’s experiences as a lawyer enabled him to understand the impacts of the cuts on legal aid. Although Sir Ivan was a member of the Conservative Party, he knew that the government was committing a mistake, which was regrettable and thus could not listen and keep quiet. He, therefore, rose up and blamed the government for disregarding the plight of some members of the society. In respond to him and the other protestors, the government through Shailesh Vara, the justice minister said that people have been litigants in persons even before legal aid reductions. Vara also said that the government is developing new ways for assisting people requiring legal aid. In addition, he pointed out that the government is working with judges to develop news and ensure that people who are acting as litigants in person are assisted.10 However, Vara seems to have missed the point. At the time, the minister made these statements, lawyers, and other campaigners were calling the government to stop the act of lowering the amount of legal aid. Therefore, the government could not have been working with the government. The judiciary ought to be impartial. Judges should base their decisions on relevant law and facts to be fair. However, they cannot do this if there are no people who can assist them in courts by providing relevant facts and argue against the use or for the use of a particular law in decision-making. As point out earlier, when people are not given any legal assistance, they end up offering irrelevant information and complicating discussion in the courts. To eliminate this tendency, people ought to use lawyers, as they know courts procedures and all necessary issues in courts. However, some people in society cannot afford the fees to pay lawyers. The withdrawal of legal assistance to these people threaten the possibility of ensuring that all people are equal before the law, receive a fair trial, and enjoy the right of representation. The important of legal aid in the promotion of justice is the foundation of my support of the Sir Ivan. Conclusion The legal system ought to uphold fairness in a society. The legal system should ensure justice for a victim of crime and ensure that the perpetrators of that particular crime are rehabilitated well and as required by the law. Independence of the legal system promotes fairness in the judiciary. However, to ensure that different people in the society receive justices, the judiciary ought to reflect the diversity of the society. Furthermore, legal aid should be provided to individuals who cannot afford to pay lawyers to ensure that they receive justice. Bibliography Charles Tilly, Democracy (Cambridge [England], Cambridge University Press 2007) Great Britain, Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949. Account 1949-50. Account prepared pursuant to section 10(1) of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949, of the receipts and expenses of the Law Society paid into and out of the Legal Aid Fund in the period ended 31st March 1950; together with the report of the comptroller and auditor general thereon (Cambridge. Proquest LLC 2007) Hegtvedt and Clay Warner, Justice (Bingley, JAI Press 2008) Jack Cashill, If I had a son race, guns, and the railroading of George Zimmerman (New York, WND Books 2013) Jacqueline Martin, The English legal system (London, Hodder Arnold 2005) Jeff Ashton and Lisa Pulitzer, Imperfect justice: prosecuting Casey Anthony (New York, William Morrow 2011) Lenny Hamilton and Craig Cabell, Getting away with murder (London, John Blake 2006) Momin Rahman and Stevin Jackson, Gender, and sexuality: sociological approaches (Cambridge, Polity 2010) Mary-Rachel McCabe, Grayling Day protest: A day of shame for the Lord Chancellor (2014) ww.legalvoice.org.uk/2014/03/07/grayling-day-protest-a-day-of-shame-for-the-lord-chancellor/ accessed 14 May 2015 Paul Stephan, Foreign Court Judgments and the United States Legal System (Leiden, BRILL 2014) Read More