Characteristics of the US Legal System - Essay Example

The American Law xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The American Law xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Name xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Course xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Course Instructor Q1 The most important characteristics of the U.S. legal system are its common law heritage and origins, the role of its written Constitution, and the federal state division of power. The American laws are a reflection of the standards, expectations and values of the society. They lay a foundation to the rules and regulations of the conduct of the people. These include the expected behavior in business dealings which are aimed at ensuring the each party is treated fairly and according to the law. The laws are aimed at enabling the American society to be able to avoid problems and have realistic avenues of solving any arising problems that is fair. The law purposed to govern the lives of the citizens and is based on 6 sources. These include the US constitution, the statute law, common law, the bill of rights and the case law1. The basis foundation of the USA law is in its constitution. This is the standard and supreme law against which all the other laws are measured upon. The constitution is what established the country as a republic and it is what was used to determine the congressional system structure and is applicable to all the American citizens. The American constitution is a living document as it can be amended to be able to respond to the changes, concerns, values and needs of the country. The constitution at the present contains seven articles and 10 amendments which constitute the ill of rights plus other 17 amendments which have been adopted over the period of time2. The fundamental rights of all the Americans are described in the bill of rights and the limits of how the federal government exercises the limits over the lives of the citizens as pertaining freedom. The bill of rights include the rights to speech, freedom of religion, freedom of press, speedy public trial, the right to have or bear arms and the right to being protected against searches and seizures that are not reasonable. Each of the states has its own constitution that provides its foundation of its laws. The laws of each state can be amended for as long as they do not conflict the federal law. The laws of each state are under the custody of the state attorney general. The statute law that is adopted by the US congress and the local elected officials of the state affect the daily lives of the American citizens in their constituent states. These apply to credit rights, debt collection rights, inheritance and responsibilities of married couples and or parents. Other laws include the administrative laws, case law the common law3. The common law traces its origin back in the 12th century England during the ages where there were no legal precedents that were to act as a guide to judges for the purposes of decision making. The judges based their decisions on the existing customs and common sense to arrive at dispute conclusions and other legal controversies. These decisions are a guide to how the legal practitioners make their judgments in the modern day world. As per the case laws, the judge and other legal practitioners are to analyze and make judgments of a case or dispute at hand based on the existing law of the said case. The precedents are purposed to guide the judge and other law practitioners in the decision making of the disputes at hand that are similar. The American court system is made up of a variety of court systems which comprise of the federal system and a collection of 50 systems of the state. Each of the state systems has its own structure and procedures however all the systems are multi-tired. The legal cases begin from lower courts and sometimes work their way up to the higher courts. Most of the legal issues and disputes are resolved in the state trial courts. These courts are of the lower tier in the legal state court systems. The trials may proceed in either the municipal, district, regional or the city courts. The levels may range from the limited jurisdiction to general descriptions4. Juvenile, traffic violation, civil, minor criminal and other minor cases are normally heard in the municipal, magistrate, county and or the justice of peace courts. The courts that are classified under the general jurisdictions are include the superior, circuit, district and courts of common pleas but this is dependant of the state. Other courts that are found in the states include the family law courts and the small claim courts. The next tier of the court system consists of the appellate courts which are purposed to review the decisions that have been made by the trial courts. This is aimed at either reversing or upholding the decisions made by these courts as well as modification of the given monetary rewards. The Supreme Court is a legal court of last option that is available to every citizen in the particular state. The decision of the Supreme Court is final at the state court system but can be appealed to the US Supreme Court. Like the appellate court, the US Supreme Court is entitled to review the procedures and the decisions made by the trial and the state Supreme courts to arrive at a fair and just verdict. The federal courts are divided in to two groups which consist of the district and the circuits. All the states have a federal district but the nu8mber of the federal districts may rise depending on the population of the state. The Supreme Courts is at the very head of the federal court system. The courts are where the trials of civil and not criminal cases are heard and determined. These include the cases of federal law such as taxation, bankruptcy, federal claims and veteran appeals. The states also have federal appeal cases that are to review appeal cases from the federal district courts. This courts act according to the constitution as they only allow which involve the following: constitutional law, disputes between residents of different states, disputes between US citizens and foreigners and issues that involve the federal and the state law. The American law is divided into two categories that is, the criminal law and the civil law. Majority of the legal problems that the courts in the United States have to deal with are those involving civil law. Such include disputes between neighbors, family conflicts, consumer problems among other issues. The cases that are most common are those concerned with divorce procedures since divorce has become so rampant in the US5. Individuals can file civil lawsuits themselves or have their attorneys do it on their behalf. The one who initiates the lawsuit is referred to as the plaintiff whereas the one being sued is the defendant. Civil lawsuits are filed in situations where the plaintiff wants to receive monetary relief whereby he has been wronged and that has caused him a significant amount of loss or damage. The plaintiff may also file a civil lawsuit in a situation where he wants to force his offender to do something or not do something for him. In legal terms this is considered as seeking injunctive relief. On the other hand, criminal law deals with offences done against the society at large. This includes cases involving murder, theft, arson, abuse, embezzlement among other crimes. Individuals have no legal authority to initiate criminal lawsuits since this can only be done by the state or the federal prosecutor. The action to be taken against a defendant found guilty in a criminal case depends on several factors which include the seriousness of the crime, defendants past record of crimes and the state in which the trials took place for example if there was sufficient evidence for the judge or the jury to make a correct judgment. Penalties against criminal offender include monetary penalties, imprisonment, public service and death. Criminal cases require thorough investigation for the prosecuting attorney to prove beyond doubt that the defendant is guilty. Contracts are another essential part of the US legal system. They form the basis for business and personal transactions and can either be written or unwritten. They are legal agreements between two or more people. Characteristics of legal binding contracts include mental capability of both parties to understand that they are entering into an agreement, contracts do involve illegal transactions, there must be enough evidence that the contract exists and the contract must involve features such as offer, acceptance and consideration. An offer occurs if one shows an intention to enter into a contract with someone else known as the offeree. Acceptance occurs if the offeree voluntarily agrees to enter into the contract. Consideration is whereby both parties exchange valuable terms of performance of the contract6. Written contracts are the best since all the terms involved are well spelled out to avoid future misunderstandings. Terms include individuals’ obligations, applicable deadlines and answers to questions that may arise. They are especially important in contracts where money and emotional matters are involved. Another kind of contract is the fill-in-blanks contract. They are mostly used in straightforward contracts and are not appropriate for large contracts7. To begin with, the plaintiff must file a complaint within a given period of time with a court having a jurisdiction over the specific legal issue involved. That period of time is known as the statute of limitation and it differs in length depending on the kind of legal problem. The complaint gives reasons for the lawsuit, cites the relevant section of the law and the action that one expects the law to take. Once the complaint is filed, the court summons the defendant in form of an official notification. The defendant is expected to respond within a given period of time and failure to which may lead to charges for default judgment. However, before the defendant responds to the summon his attorney may file a motion to dismiss and if the court denies it he must give a response. The defendant may also respond by filing a counterclaim against the plaintiff. This is done in order to pressurize the plaintiff to drop the claims. Before any other step is taken, the court gives both parties a chance to resolve matters outside the court through mediation by the help of a mediator. If mediation is not successful, the case enters the discovery stage where the actual trials begin done by either the judge or by the jury. Once the trials are finished and either the plaintiff or the defendant is not satisfied by the outcome rather the verdict then he can file an appeal in court of appeal. The USA congress has three main responsibilities according to the constitution. Firstly, it decides how many courts should be created under the Supreme Court, how many judges should be in each court and gives the jurisdictions of the courts. Secondly, the senate decides on the federal judges from the presidents list of judicial nominees. The third function of the congress is to allocate money for the judicial operations and to approve budgets of the supreme courts. Under the constitution, it is the obligation of the president to nominate constitutional judges which is then approved by the senate. However, the president may seek assistance from senators regarding potential candidates. Selection of federal judges is not task left entirely on the president but other executive branches also take part8. For instance department of justice is a frequent litigator of the federal court system. The US Marshal provides security to judges and the federal courthouses as well as General Service Administration buildings. Proposed law becomes law once it is passed by the House of Representatives and the senate approved by the president. The federal government is operated by the president, the cabinet and other members of the president’s administration. They are also responsible for the enforcement of the laws passed by the two houses and approved by the president. The Attorney general, head of the Department of Justice, has the responsibility of prosecuting criminals, representing the government in civil cases, being in the administration of the Bureau of Prisons and Federal Bureau of Investigation and other law enforcement departments. Federal courts are considered as the guardians to the constitution because their judgments interpret the law to resolve legal problems. Courts neither make laws nor enforce them since this is the responsibility of the congress and the executive branches only9. Question 2B The origin of the jury is dated back from the reign of King Henry II in England where the then petit jury which comprised of 12 persons was established to determine the innocence or guilt issues. This later expanded in size to 23 persons whose function was to investigate and review the charges brought to them by the crown. The jury in the United States is regarded as the defenders of the innocent against oppressive and malicious prosecution. They are a panel of persons who are normally summoned to court to review the evidences to assess their justifiability. The jury serves as the protective bulwark between the defendant and the government. The jury determines whether the charge that one is being accused or is founded on a justifiable reason or on malice and or the ill will of the accuser. In the USA, the jury has a constitutional underpinning which is contained in the 5th amendment of the bill of rights of the American constitution10. The jury acts as an independent body apart from the American prosecution and courts that is to examine any collected evidence that has been brought against the defendant. The juries have specific functional rules depending on the states they operate in. They are entitled to hear both sides of the cases in order to have a valid and justifiable verdict of the case in hand. The jury does not have a judge and only the prosecution is able to lay or present the collected evidence. The grand jury process is often open as the proceedings are always open to the media or the public. Unlike the judge who is to interpret the law’s application to the case, the jury is to find the facts as they are presented and make a decision as to which witnesses are to be believed and to choose the most credible evidence that has been presented. Before it is to begin its work, the judge is to charge the jury. This includes the giving of the facts of the law as it applies to the case in hand and the fact finding is to be applicable to the law. The jury is to follow the legal principles that have and legal decisions that are to be provided by the judge. The judgment of the facts has to be founded on the evidence that has been presented before them which could be in forms of exhibits or any other material. They are solely to judge the believability of the witnesses. Te questions that are often asked while judging the witnesses during a hearing session would include; is the witness telling the truth?, does the witness know what he/she is talking about?, how good the witnesses recollections is, how he/she is behaving during the hearing process. The jury is not to speculate or guess what the evidence would have been or base the findings on personal feelings or decisions but on the facts11. The jury is a vital institution in the American law system as the constitution guarantees the right to the jury trial in both the criminal and civic cases. This is depicted in the 6th and the 7th amendments of the American constitution of the criminal and civic cases respectively. The 6th amendment guarantees the accused of a speedy and public trial with the inclusion of a jury that is impartial of the state and/or the district in which the crime was committed. The district is to have been ascertained by law. The accused has the right to be on trial in the presence of the jury in all the cases apart from the petty offences of fines or and accompanied by a probation of less than 6 months. While this is done, either party may demand to be heard in the presence of the jury. However, the rights of the defendant must be upheld and protected. The size of the jury and its unanimity has to be maintained during the hearing process of all the petty offences according to the states 14th amendment. Based on the 7th amendment, the right of the jury is preserved for all the common law cases that exceed $20. If an accused continues and is tried without the presence of the jury, the trial shall be re-examined in any USA court according to the common law rules. Historically, the agreed number of jurors to attend the hearing of a trial is 12. The number may reduce and vary if the case to be heard is petty but with a minimum of 6 to 8 jurors. For a verdict decision to be reached there is need for unanimity. The jurors are normally selected from registered voters with the process addressing both the gender and racial issues to create balance and fairness. There is no detailed qualification for one to be enrolled as a juror but there is need for the selected jurors to follow the law in the analysis of the cases in hand. The jury in this case is to provide a check official power. The civil juries are charged with the responsibility of deciding upon cases that involves the official misconduct, justice standards or the public health safety. They need not to have an interest in the case outcome but rather to ensure that the trials have a fair ending. The jury incorporates the collective intellect of all the jurors in the pool that is able to completely recall and critically analyze the evidence according to the law provisions. The jury has the capacity to analyze the intentions of the plaintiff and his/her motives in bringing up the suit. Unlike the judges, the jurors are able to bring in different blends of perspectives from the community as they come from different communities which are of different values in their decision making. In addition, the jurors are brought from different fields and occupations thus not limited in knowledge compared to the judge. To eliminate the eventuality of biasness, the jurors are always vetted. This gives the jurors an avenue to apply fairness and equity to a case that the judges are more constrained by the fine points of law may be obliged to ignore12. Advantages of American jury system Jury of the new republican America has managed to unite races that is, the white and the black people. It has also succeeded in mending the gap in society between the old and the young as well as bringing about gender equality in the systems of justice. Initially, only white men had the right to sit in a jury since they were considered to have enough properties that qualified them for such service. Black people were practically excluded from serving in the jury and such exclusion was detrimental as it caused weakening of the system. Besides this, women were considered as a weaker gender and did not have a right to sit in the jury up until 1975 which occurred after several struggles and trials. The jury also comprised of a people of a given age hence excluded individuals of lesser ages who might be even more resourceful. The jury is considered as the most democratic institution in America and one which provides a platform for the public to participate in the justice system. Actually, the only opportunity that citizens have a chance to be involved in state affairs, other than the voting process, is the jury in the courtroom. The jurors have a direct right to make decisions as opposed to the manner in which most of the governmental institutions draw power from the people by way of electing representative in the decision making forums. It may therefore be considered as a link between the court and the common people13. Juries bring a variety of community values and perspectives into the decisions they make since it is made of a cross section of people from the immediate community with different experiences, backgrounds, knowledge, fields and occupations. This is in contrast to the judgment or verdict made by a single judge who has limited knowledge in other fields that might be vital in the process of making decisions in a given trial. In this case, the jury can be considered as more accurate than the judge and their verdicts are fairer since they are made from a wide range of considerations. The long life knowledge and experience that juries possess has been regarded as a particularly important asset when it comes to making judgments that are rather difficult when left in the hands of a judge. For instance in situation where damages involve an intangible kind of injury like mental suffering, disabilities, physical pain and disfigurement from injuries such as sterility, quadriplegia or blindness, the value accrued form the particular loss can only be assessed by the judgment of highly experienced and knowledgeable human beings. The jury also acts as guards against oppression of the citizens by the government. Through civil proceedings, the jury serves in settling disputes between citizens whereas in criminal proceedings, it provides a settlement of despites between the state and the civilians. The major purpose of the jury is to see that justice is done and they are not interested on the outcome of the case14. Disadvantages Establishment of a celebrity culture in the USA has resulted to a biased jury system whereby the rich and famous celebrities are considered more deserving than the ordinary people in a court of law. This occurs when a celebrity defendant facing a trial has admirers sitting in the jury hence the verdict made by the jury favors the celebrity. A classic instance of such a case is the Michael Jackson’s trial on child molestation in 2005. Majority of the jurors maneuvered their way into the jury and actually acquitted Jackson on all the trials. It was after this that two of the jurors who had smuggled videotapes into the courtroom, went on television to declare that Jackson was for sure guilty and the how they planned to write a book out of all the happenings of the cases. Jurors struggle to be in the juries involved in celebrity cases for the chance to write a book out of the deal which the sell for large amounts of money. After O.J. Simpson, a former footballer was controversially acquitted for the murder of his ex-wife in 1995; almost all the jurors involved in this case wrote a book or participated in some kind of book project. Although jurors have a right to write about the cases they handle, most critics believe that the practice has a negative effect on the jury system. Another disadvantage of using jury system in a court trail is that it is an expensive undertaking. The jury which is composed of a minimum of 6-8 people and a maximum of 12 people might prove too difficult to maintain in terms of remuneration. It is cheaper to pay a judge whereby it is only him who gives verdict in a given trial as compared to a jury trial where the state has to pay about 12 people with each of them receiving a pay that is close to that of a single judge. Juries are hard to control since the large group is represented by different ideologies and opinions. Having mentioned that juries are composed of a cross section of society from different background, experiences and occupations, it is then clear that challenges of differing ideas is a major setback during the process of making decisions to pass judgment. It has been noted that many cases presided over by a jury either take long to be completed or ultimately go unfinished due conflicting issues among the jurors. Majority of the jurors are not conversant with the law and they are not qualified to deal with technical questions. Although they follow legal principles their judgment is solely based on the believability of the witnesses and on the evidence presented to them. In that case, the question of how true the witness is always arises. In some situations the evidence or the exhibit are scientific hence requiring extensive research that might be too technical for the jury to do with competence15 Read More