Social Contract Theorists - Case Study Example

Introduction Social contract theorists explain that people enter into social contract with leaders who for governments with the view of protecting their interests for a specified duration. The theory explains the development of contemporary democracies throughout the world (Fox, 2013). Governments therefore carry out periodic evaluation of the societies thereby introducing new initiatives with the view of providing realistic solutions to the problems. The new initiatives occur in the form of new state officers mandated with particular duties thereby mitigating the problems. This increases efficiency in service delivery. The social structures of the society coupled with the prevailing social features contribute to the manifestation of social problems (Glendon, 1994). Overpopulation for example is a social feature that results in the development of social problems in the society. With increased population, cases of crime increase in the society thereby invoking the intervention of the government to develop effective and efficient structures to curb such social problems. The Oscar Pistorius case in South Africa and the Michael Jackson case in the United States are two phenomenal cases in the world that has help portray the difference in the judicial proceedings in different countries. The judiciary is a fundamental arm of the any government the United States, United Kingdom and the republic of South Africa included. The three countries are leading democracies and developed economies in their respective continent; they therefore typify the democratic maturity in contemporary democracies worldwide (Corbett, Jacobs & Shackleton, 2011). However, their judiciaries has different structures just as is the case with their social and cultural features which therefore validate the difference in the manner in which their judiciaries function as envisaged in the discussion below. The number of judges in a bench does not determine the fairness in a case. However, the number may help provide a national representation to a case and provide the judges with the opportunity to consult among themselves thereby making a fair ruling. A one-judge bench on the other hand is likely to provide a speedy ruling to a case owing to the lack of conflicting interests in the interpretations of the laws. The two countries therefore provide differing number of judges to the cases based on the interests and efficiency of the systems. Furthermore, the judicial systems in the three countries provide the parties with the liberty to appeal the ruling of a court in a higher court. Should Oscar Pistorius feel deprived by the single jury bench, he can appeal to either the court of appeal or the supreme court where the chief justice will evaluate the facts presented by the party and the interests the previous ruling attracted to the case before instituting yet another bench of judges to hear the appeal. The same is applicable to the parties involved in the Michael Jackson case. They also enjoy the liberty to appeal the ruling thereby obtaining a second audience from a higher court in the country. Media coverage of court cases is a contemporary social issue that represents the growing public and international interests in some court case. The South African courts have permitted both the local and international media to televise the Oscar Pistorius case. The American judiciary has also permitted journalists to cover the proceedings but in a different way. Unlike in South Africa where the media televises the live proceedings, the American journalists have do not provide a live coverage of the court case. Such an occurrence may arise from either the editorial interests in both cases or the judicial provisions. The United States is a liberal and developed democracy that upholds the interests of the populace (Slomanson, 2011). The country therefore permits freedom of information a feature that permits journalists to cover and televise court cases. The growing interest in court cases has resulted in media coverage of the same cases, which is a contemporary social feature in different societies. Such cases as the Oscar Pistorius in South Africa and the alleged murder of Michael Jackson in the United States have portrayed the interest that court cases may attract with both cases attracting the observation and coverage of the international media (Craig & Búrca, 2007). Through the respective coverage, the media succeeded in portraying the difference in the countries to the world. As explained earlier, the judiciary is an independent arm of the government with a budget and an equally effective structure of operations. The difference constitutions in the three countries develop three distinctive judiciaries that may have similar structure but function differently depending on the statements of the respective constitutions (Durchslag, 2002). The chief justice, who is the president of the judiciary in the three countries, determines the number of judges to assign in every case. The number of jurists in a case differs depending on the public interest and the gravity of the case. The South African judiciary assigned a single jury to the Oscar Pistorius case while the American case assigned a bench of three jurists to the Michael Jackson case. The difference in the number of jurists in the two cases arises from the notational interest that the chief justice in the respective countries believe the cases have. While both cases attract international attention since the parties involved are international figures, the two judicial systems apportion the cases different number of judges based on the competence of both the judges and the judicial systems. However, the involvement of the media in a court case requires effective regulation in order to minimize instances of contempt of court by the media. The three countries therefore have a series of legislations that govern the actions of journalists while covering court cases thereby minimizing harm. A journalist cannot ask questions or contribute to the proceedings. They simply watch and report the cases as they proceed. Additionally, journalists in the three countries cannot write an opinion column on a yet to be determined case. The coverage of the cases and report by journalists are not considered as evidence in the proceedings. This implies that the journalists covering a court case in the three countries enjoy the freedom enjoyed by any other member of the public who attends similar proceedings (Bogen, 2003). The journalist may have an opportunity to question the judges and parties in a court case after a session but their findings should not interfere with the proceeding. In fact, the three countries bar their judges among other judicial officials from taking to the press on an ongoing case. References Bogen, D. S. (2003). Privileges and Immunities: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group. Corbett, R. Jacobs, F. & Shackleton, M. (2011). The European Parliament (8th ed.). London: John Harper Publishing. Craig, P. & Búrca, G. (2007). EU Law, Text, Cases and Materials (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Damian, C. Gareth, D. & Giorgio, M. (2010). European Union. Cambridge: CUP. Durchslag, M. R. (2002). State Sovereign Immunity: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution. Westport, Conn: Praeger. Ewan, M. (2005). Contract Law - Text, Cases and Materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fox, H. (2013). Law of State Immunity. S.l.: Oxford University Press. Giuttari, T. R. (1970). The American Law of Sovereign Immunity: An Analysis of Legal Interpretation. New York: Praeger. Glendon, M. (1994). A Nation Under Lawyers: How the Crisis in the Legal Profession Is Transforming American Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Halbrook, S. P. (1998). Freedmen, the 14th Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866-1876. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group. Kapardis, A. (2009). Psychology and law: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Slomanson, W. (2011). Fundamental Perspectives on International Law. Boston, MA: Wadsworth. Sovereign Immunity: The Tort Liability of Government and Its Officials. Raleigh, N.C: The Committee, 1979. Print. Read More