The Different Types of Jurisdictions - Essay Example

Q1. Explain what the term jurisdiction means and identify the different types of jurisdictions and how it is determined what jurisdiction preside a case. Garvin (2002) defines Jurisdiction as the authority of a federal court or a state to hear a case. It can also refer to the authority of an agency, commission, department, board, or public administrative body to investigate, initiate, or review a complaint. Different states and federal administrative bodies have jurisdictions over the conduct of private sector investigators, as well as private employers. According to Barbara (2001), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have the authority to review charges against employers and their agents of unfair discriminatory practices and labor practices. There are various types of jurisdiction; among the types of jurisdictions are: in personam and subject matter. A court must have both in personam and subject matter jurisdictions, in order to preside over a case. Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the authority over the matter in dispute. It concerns what types of disputes may be heard by which courts. The in personam jurisdiction is referred to as the authority over a person (Garvin, 2002). All trial courts have either limited jurisdictions or general jurisdictions; limited jurisdictions are limited to certain types of cases, for instance, bankruptcy court, tax court and housing court. General jurisdiction courts have the power to hear various cases. In addition to that, all courts have either exclusive or concurrent jurisdictio9n in any specific category of cases. An exclusive jurisdiction is a type of jurisdiction whereby only one court has the power to hear a case. On the other hand, concurrent jurisdiction is the kind of jurisdiction where more than one courts have the power to hear the case (Barbara, 2001). Other types of jurisdictions include original and appellate jurisdictions. All courts either have original or appellate jurisdiction. A court of original jurisdiction is the court that possesses the power to try a case, resolving the merits of dispute by deciding the legal issues, determining the facts and applying the law to the facts. This type of jurisdiction is also referred to as lower court jurisdiction, trial court jurisdiction or court of first instance. Appellate jurisdiction is where a court reviews the legal rulings of lower courts. Federal courts and state have restricted jurisdictions over many sectors of law and concurrent jurisdictions over areas of mutual interest. In other words, the federal courts have jurisdictions over cases concerning the federal government, laws, and constitution. Similarly, they have jurisdictions over civil cases that involve state law issues between different states having great damages (Garvin, 2002). The jurisdiction to preside a case is determined by the nature and the type of the case. For example a warehouse employee who worked for a company, injured his leg at work and pursued a worker compensation claim. Moreover, his employer's investigator trespassed upon the employee's property in the same company while trying to video the employee digging a trench in his backyard. If the employee filed a suit against the investigator and the company for invasion of privacy, he will do so in a court that has subject matter jurisdiction over wrongful trespass committed within the state, and in personam jurisdiction over employee, employer and investigator (Barbara, 2001). The federal courts, under the principle of pendant jurisdiction, may decide cases that involve both substantial federal issues and state law issues, when the facts and the parties are the same. References Barbara, A. (2001). Procedural justice and jurisdictions. New York: Springer. Garvin, A. (2002). The Justice Broker. Lawyers and Ordinary Ligation. New York: State University of New York Press. Q3 Identify what rights an offender has and how those rights are legally determined. Offenders' rights cover all phases of a prosecution or juvenile adjudication. Many of these rights consider the notice of what is going to happen in a certain case. However, not all these rights apply to every case (Grogan, 2002). Examples of these rights are: a. An offender has a right to a support person throughout the criminal process b. An offender has a right to information about a case. c. An offender has a right to safety Some of the offenders' rights apply for victims of particular criminal offence, for instance, sexual assault. Some depend on how the offender is defined for the right. Moreover, some of the rights apply in the adult criminal justice and not in juvenile justice system. The rights related to trials are not exercised in most cases, since most cases do not go to trial (Robert, 2003). Many of the laws establishing offenders' rights identify who is responsible for honoring the rights. For example, an offender has the right to be notified by the district attorney of the release hearing upon the timely request. When setting any court hearing or resetting any trial date requiring the presence of the victim, the court would take the victim into consideration. However, many offenders' rights do not identify who is responsible for honoring the right. For instance, upon specific request, an offender has a right to be informed in advance of any significant stage of the proceedings held in open court. The constitution does not identify the party responsible for the advance information. The law may identify who is responsible, but does not indicate how it will happen (Grogan, 2002). Most of Oregon offenders' rights are not legally enforceable. This explains why offenders in most cases are unable to bring a legal action for effective process. However, there are some things that an offender can do in order to ensure that a right is legally determined (Grogan, 2002). These things include: a. Allowing the Assistance Program, juvenile department or prosecutor to get involved with the case. b. Bringing the right to the attention of the person or agency responsible for legal determination of the right before the right needs to be exercised. c. Filling a grievance with an agency if she or he remains dissatisfied with the agency responses to concerns raised about the right. The Attorney General's office is considering rules that may allow room for additional review and response when a crime victim thinks that her or his rights were not legally determined. Moreover, the Crime Victims' Rights Project is developing good practices that would help identify who is responsible for many of the offenders rights that do not indicate who is responsible (Robert, 2003). References Grogan, P. (2002). Introduction to law. New York: Macmillan publishing company. Robert, D. (2003). The law and the criminal victims' rights. New York: McGraw Hill. Q4. Discuss how and why the community policing model philosophy of fighting crime came to be a widely recognized model to use in reducing crime. Discuss how a community policing model is different from incident-based policing model. Community policing aims at reducing crime and disorder by encouraging the officers to identify community problems and suggest solutions to the problems, with input from the residence. According to this philosophy, police are supposed to provide formal access to the department's decision, as well as policy making process. The citizens would therefore voice their concerns to the police, who will thoughtfully address these concerns. Police officers are expected to initiate frequent personal contacts with the members of a given community and interact in a compassionate and friendly manner; this facilitates the reduction of crime in the community. Community policing recognizes that police work is mostly oriented in reinforcement tasks such as providing social services and maintaining order (Ratcliffe, 2005). Community policing demands that police departments restructure their relationship with the local communities, and should change their attitudes towards the citizens and the police work. For this reason, it is considered a significant model of reducing crime. According to Maguire (2006), the police enlist the help of the members of the community; they encourage them to report suspicious or illegal behaviors. On the other hand, they educate the same members of the community on how to avoid becoming criminals. Education is done through prevention programs such as neighborhood watch. Moreover, the trust developed between the police and the community plays a major role in reducing crime; the trust is developed through the community policing model. The other contributing factor to reduction of crime is that, community policing attempts to improve frequency and the quality of socialization and interaction between the police and the citizens. It does so by assigning the police officers to bicycle patrols or foot in particular geographical areas. This will facilitate more frequent interactions and contacts between the police and the public as compared to the motorized patrol (Ratcliffe, 2005). Community policing model calls for service with problem solving and pro-active policing; it ensures that the public becomes part of the police system, thus helps the administration in problem solving. This model focus on prevention and reduction of crime, as well as prevention of social disorder through the delivery of police service which include prevention and problem solving, as well as traditional system. To conclude this, the system can be the most effective method in reducing crime as the efforts of the public fighting with the crime increases. Moreover, the criminals will have a mental pressure since anyone from the society will be reporting their crime to the police (Maguire, 2006). Community policing model is different from incident-based policing model. Community policing, unlike the incident -based training involves training and education of the public. Training includes recruit academy, field training and in-service training. Incident -based policing does not consider the interaction between the police officers and the public; the police operate on their own. This shows great difference between the two policing models. Because of the distinct differences, the community policing is more effective in crime reduction than the incident-based policing (Ratcliffe, 2005). References Maguire, M. (2006). Intelligence led policing, managerial and community engagement. Singapore: Longman Ratcliffe, J. H. (2005). The effectiveness of police intelligence management: New York: State University of New York Press Q5. Discuss why plea bargaining is so widely used in the court system. Explain how plea bargaining serves or doesn't serve the interests of the key players involved in a court case. According to Wheeler (2003), plea bargaining is the process whereby the prosecutor and the accused in a criminal case work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court approval. It involves the defendant's pleading guilty to a lesser offence. Plea bargaining is widely used in most court system; the main reason is that it allows the judicial system to handle the ever-increasing case load. Moreover, it allows for great flexibility in the criminal justice system and it permits the defendant to acknowledge guilt and manifest a readiness to responsibility for his actions (Smith, 2006). Plea bargaining is an important part of criminal justice system in most states, for instance, United States. Majority of criminal cases are often settled by plea bargain, rather than by a jury trial. Plea bargaining has made its correlation to the ever increasing complexity in trial processes. It dominates day-to-day operation of the American Criminal Justice System, therefore, majority of the convictions are obtained by way of a guilty plea (Wheeler, 2003). Plea bargaining was fundamental for the administration of justice and has given rise to a debate that involves basic issues of sentencing policy of the use of government enticement to secure waivers of legitimate rights, and of the propriety of compromising issues of criminal quilt. However, plea bargaining does not fully serve the interests of the key players involved in a court case. According to Wheeler (2003), plea bargaining is detrimental to an innocent defendant. In addition to that, it undermines the public figure of the criminal justice, as well as subverting and eroding many values concerning the right to trial and presumption of innocence. Plea bargaining allows guilty defendants to obtain the unwanted reductions in sentences by intimidating an overworked system with pointless trial. It can be concluded that, plea bargaining sacrifices proper punishment of offenders for the purpose of efficiency. Furthermore, most guilty pleas are not the results of authentic repentance, but defendants pretend to repent in order to earn sentence reductions and therefore, the argument about acknowledgement of the guilt does not hold good (Wheeler, 2003). In countries like India, offences committed by habitual offenders and serious offences are not included in plea bargaining. This is because it takes effect only when the consent of the three parties: prosecutor, victim and judge has been obtained. Despite the positive view of the plea bargaining, it may not improve the well-being of the defendants; therefore, it is not desirable or satisfactory to all the parties that are involved in a case (Smith, 2006). References Smith, M. (2006). Plea bargaining triumph: a history of plea bargaining in America. Singapore: Longman. Wheeler, S. (2003). Breaking with tradition, introducing problem solving in Conventional courts. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press. Read More