"If the Constitution is the source of governmental power, and the judiciary interprets the Constitution, then the judiciary is the most powerful branch of government" Discuss.
"If the Constitution is the source of governmental power, and the judiciary interprets the Constitution, then the judiciary is the most powerful branch of government" Discuss In answering this question I will first paint a picture of the power that the court holds, and decide whether this is governmental power. Then I will outline the balances that the court must maintain in its decision making and therefore the checks on its actions as an institution that governs America. "Scarcely any political question arises that is not resolved sooner or later into a judicial question." (Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy in America) If we take Tocqueville on his word then the American Judiciary truly is in a powerful position. The reason for much of this power is the principle of judicial review of the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government at both state and federal level against a written constitution and the power therefore to 'interpret' the constitution. The power of judicial review over the states is laid down in the supremacy clause of article III and the power of judicial review over the other two branches of the federal government is implied in the constitution and by several but by no means all of the founding fathers: "A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its
"If you want to make enemies, try to change something" I have not ridden a bicycle in many years. I rode eight miles on a bike this weekend. My left ankle is very sore, my back is sore and I have black along with blue marks on both of my very tender arches. Consequently, of my changing an exercising habit, I am experiencing pain. Change often causes pain, not only physically, but also emotionally. The same is true for you and the same is true for organizations. Thus, we should not be surprised when change causes pain, nor when people choose to be enemies rather than face the pain of change. At the same time, in today's rapid-paced environment, it is important for us to understand that the future is not based upon the past but rather upon our ability to adapt to the continuously changing present. We must therefore continuously improve or we will fail. Thus, a quote that emphasises the notion in relation to ' change' is; "If you want to make enemies, try to change something" This quote emphasises how any hostile group of people; have different perspective in relation to my occupation, "he viewed lawyers as the real enemy." "This storm is certainly a change for the worse," I said, standing outside the Supreme Court of NSW. I felt incredible in deep down inside. As I was walking towards the gigantic door of the Court, an unexpected intense voice called my name " hey Uzzi
"The Chamberlain Case highlighted many of the weaknesses in the Australian legal system." Do you agree with this assessment? Give examples to illustrate your answer. The case of Lindy Chamberlain was very significant in Australian legal history as it involved the conviction and imprisonment of an innocent person for infanticide. This is occurrence should never have taken place and demonstrated the weaknesses in the Australian legal system. A legal system is meant to be sturdy and never failing system that the public can put its trust ad faith in but this time it fell apart and wrongly convicted an innocent mother, wife and friend. Something needs to be done to ensure the unnecessary imprisonment of an innocent does not occur again. There were many issues in the legal system that let Lindy Chamberlain down. Firstly the expensive court system that disadvantages those who cannot afford the best. Secondly, the inadequacies of the police force. The third issue was the public bias and finally the contaminated jury. Cheap Lawyer "Justice only comes by the expenditure of large amounts of money and support of many friends".1 This statement is true. Not many people in the country can afford the best lawyer and it is true to say that if you have the money to pay for a brilliant lawyer than you will have a good chance at winning any case. Not many people can afford to go as far
"Examine why sexual offenders attract so much attention these days. How has the Criminal Justice System responded to societies anxieties?"
Victims, Public Protection and Risk "Examine why sexual offenders attract so much attention these days. How has the Criminal Justice System responded to societies anxieties?" In preparing for this essay it has been identified that sexual offenders are not a homogenous group of individuals and that this is an umbrella term used to describe a range of behaviours ranging from acts of voyeurism and exhibitionism, to more serious acts of pedophilia and rape. For the purpose of this essay I have chosen to focus on the more serious forms of sex offending which in my opinion, are the cause of much of the current attention. In order to understand why sexual offenders attract so much attention I will begin by considering today's society and the emergence of post-modernist values and the preoccupation with risk. I shall then go on to consider the factors which have influenced this current climate. These include the media and its portrayal of high-profile cases like that of Sarah Payne and Sidney Cooke, actions taken in the USA to manage dangerous offenders and the introduction of new offences of 'grooming' spurred by the growth of the internet. Following this I shall concentrate on how the Criminal Justice System has responded to society's anxieties and public protection needs. I will consider the range of strategies implemented to manage and reduce risk, including new
Trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution; it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives. More than 50 years later, is this statement still applicable? Should the jury system be abolished?
"Trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution; it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives.' More than 50 years later, is this statement still applicable? Should the jury system be abolished? A jury is a sworn body of people convened to deliver an impartial verdict. Juries are composed of jurors, who are by definition layman finders of fact, not professionals. The jury trials are now governs by the Juries Act 1974. As Lord Devlin once stated, trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than once wheel of the constitution. It is now been regarded as the lamp that shows that freedom lives. This was written by Lord Devlin in 1956, and the question now is whether this statement can still be applied in the legal system nowadays? To start with, the academic Penny Derbyshire penned an article entitled "The Lamp that Shows that Freedom Lives - Is it worth the Candle? In this article, she argued that jury is no longer seen as representative to the society, they are more likely to be seen as anti-democratic, irrational and haphazard legislator, whose erratic and secret decisions that against the rule of law. Since then, the critics have raised up few arguments so to support her statement. One of the arguments is the perverse decision made by the jury. It was claimed by the critics that in some clear cut cases,
Q. What justification was there for Socrates' trial, verdict and death sentence? Athens, known for its enthusiasm for new ideas, had gone down in history as a centre of new ideas, and was called the "school of Hellas," which attracted philosophers from near and far. So why was 'the wisest man,' who distributed opinions and ideas put to death? Were his trial, the two charges Socrates was blamed upon, and the resulting verdict justified? Socrates was brought to trial in 399 B.C, by three accusers, and citizens of Athens - Meletus, Anytus and Lycon. The jury in the trial, and the three accusers considered Socrates a sophist, corrupter and a nuisance. They defeated Socrates on two charges, "corrupting the minds of the young," and "believing in supernatural things of his own invention instead of gods recognised by the state,"1and as a result, he was put to death. I believe these two charges were neither justified, nor fair. For the first charge, of corrupting the youth of Athens, as Socrates argued in his defence speech, he never considered himself a teacher, and never charged a fee. In my opinion, the 'pupils' of Socrates were not forced to, but chose to follow Socrates and imitate his ways. They copied his questioning methods, often rudely, when he was not even present. Socrates said himself, in the Apology, that he does not solely influence the young, but that everyone in the
In this booklet you will find how to select your chosen Trident placement, what to do in the interview and how to make the appointment. Also you will find out about the preparation in pastoral lessons and general advice on how to prepare. The Selection Process: When it is time to select your Trident placement you have the choice to select six placements out of the Trident Book or opt for a private placement. I did neither as I knew someone that was willing to take me on. If you decide to select six placements you have to do is choose six jobs that you are willing to do because you may not get your first choice then complete form putting your favourite choice first and your least favourite last on your placement sheet. I would advise you to only write down six placements that you actually enjoy otherwise you may be very miserable for two weeks. If you choose to take a private placement then you have to find a company that you would like to go for Trident and ask them if they would be willing to take you on. If they decide to take you on you must find out if they have insurance to cover you otherwise you will not be able to undertake trident at that company. Finally if maybe you would like a Trident placement with somebody you know they must also have insurance otherwise you cannot participate. If they are already in the Trident book and they have agreed to accept you, then
Twelve Angry Men The legal system in the United States of America grants one the right to a bench trial, where a judge determines the verdict, or a jury trial where, in most cases, where a panel of twelve United States citizens are sworn in to hear a case and then deliberate, after receiving instruction by the judge, to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant. In the movie, Twelve Angry Men, the selected group of jurors was to decide the verdict of a murder case where a young man was accused of killing his father. Although we did not get to see the trial, we did get to see the jury receive instructions from the judge in regards to the law and how there needed to be a unanimous verdict to convict the accused. After the jurors received their instructions from the judge, the jury was sent off to deliberate. This was when the true colors of the jury deliberation process were revealed. When the twelve jurors entered the room to deliberate, eleven out of the twelve began with a verdict of guilty without even discussing any of the evidence. This raises an important question; the jury was instructed to deliberate, so how can they reach a verdict without recapping the trial? If it were not for the one juror, Henry Fonda, who openly admitted that he did not know if the young man was guilty or innocent, the jury would have found a guilty verdict strictly based on
Media Coursework Essay Question: How does Peter Medak gain the viewer's sympathy for Derek Bentley in the film 'Let him have it!' ? Peter Medak (Medak) chose to make this film because it had an interesting story line. Medak might have wanted to prove that the justice system makes mistake and sometimes those mistakes cannot be fixed, like the mistake or the Derek Bentley (Bentley) and Christopher Craig (Craig) case, where someone was hanged for a miss interpretation of evidence. Film directors like Medak use bias as their strong point; it keeps the viewers attention on the movie and begins to get the viewers to imagine what they would do in the situation. The film is set in the 1950's Britain. Bentley and Craig, two teenagers, are on the roof of a factory in south London. Seen by a local people, police are called. During the raid Bentley is caught and placed under custody while Craig attempts to fight the police. When Craig is approached by the police and asked to hand the gun over, Bentley purportedly yelled 'let him have it'. The controversy lies that Craig misunderstood Bentley and thought he meant that he should pull the trigger. Craig the one who fired the gun was given ten years, as he was only sixteen and underage. Bentley on the other hand was given the death sentence. Evidence was given to show Bentley was retarded and had the mental age of eleven, although was not
The Concepts and Reality of Punishment The concepts and reality of punishment has evolved over the years through official government channels and social pressures. The publics opinion of crime and punishment is finely balanced and can tip the scales of justice in either direction with society demanding harsher sentencing or calling for leniency depending on the crimes, the criminal or period in society. This essay outlines concepts of past punishments and new judiciary concepts that have evolved, the realities of these changes, and what they mean to both the criminals and society in general. Punishment could be said to be societies retribution, which is solely concerned with punishment for committing a particular offence; the Old Testament way of 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and a life for a life', is still much beloved by today's hangers and floggers. Essentially, revenge is, to a degree, a crude form of sentencing in that there is no element of compassion or understanding of the offender or indeed a desire to reform him. Nowadays, the concept of retribution is almost dismissed However, during the 1980s, there was public concern at what was being perceived as the punishment not fitting the crime, and the idea of retribution came back into fashion, where it quietly remains an important factor in sentencing of the most serious offences. The Government is