Comparing The Justice Systems Of Canadian With The United States Legal System

The Criminal Justice System is the complex system that deals with the crime and provides justice to all within the framework of integrity and tradition. This system in Canada is a labyrinth of procedures & organizations that try to control crime by diminishing wrong-doings and forcing punishments for the commission of law violations. In Canada, there are various levels of the criminal justice system comprising municipal, provincial and federal platforms. Each level consists of its own law enforcement, courts, and corrections, including police. Canada's legal administration is organized according to the British North America Act, 1867 (now known as the Constitution Act, 1867), continued from British colonial roots. So, the Canadian fundamental principles of rules/regulations and justice are not much different from nations currently or been ever governed by the British government.

Canada and the United States have a very similar criminal justice system. Both systems have the same players: the criminal, the police, a prosecutor, and a judge. They also have similar steps in prosecuting a criminal, except with slightly different names. The basic steps in the United States criminal justice system are arrest, preliminary hearing to determine bail, preliminary arraignment to determine what crime was committed within jurisdiction in the court, arraignment to determine if the defendant will plead guilty or not guilty, trial to determine if the defendant is guilty, and sentencing by the judge to determine the punishment for the crime.

The court structure in the United States is comprised of a dual court system. The dual court system consists of “one system of state and local courts and another system of federal courts” (Bohm & Haley, 2011, p. 274). Although the system has a separate court system for state and federal court, they do connect in the United States Supreme Court. Each court has various levels of jurisdiction to hear and make decisions over cases (Bohm & Haley, 2011).

3. Discuss the issue regarding the victims ' rights to notification regarding important proceeding, decisions, and actions related to their case.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau is a significant person in the history of my theme, Canadian politics in relation to the legal system. As the 15th Prime Minister of Canada, he played a huge role in shaping Canada through his political career by upholding a philosophy of Canada united as one through a strong federal government. In the wake of the 1980 referendum win, Trudeau immediately wanted to fulfill the constitutional promise that he made during his campaign. It was he who had the vision of patriating the Constitution, and for the following 18 months this would become his top priority. Being the most reluctant to include an entrenched Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Constitution, he immediately formed a commission to get ideas from

Originally, during Colonial times, policing in the United States consisted of little more than night watches. These watches weren’t very effective, as watchmen often drank or slept on duty, and many of the volunteers were only there as a way to get out of military service or helping with the watch as a form of punishment (Potter, 2013). It wasn’t until 1838 that the city of Boston established the first formal organized police force in America. Other cities soon followed, and by the 1880s, all major metropolitan areas had a formal police force.

Over 50% of Canadians believe that most of their fellow citizens can be trusted (Turcotte).

For this institution Pittonia will draw inspiration from the Canada. Canada’s court system is comprised of four tiers; the provincial and territorial lower courts, the provincial and territorial superior courts, the appellate courts, both regional and federal, and the Canadian Supreme Court (“Canada’s Court System”). By using a method such as this Pittonia will ensure that all areas needing judicial guidance are overseen. Borrowing more from the Canadian system, and not another similar one, such as the American system, Pittonia’s courts are all unified, and the Supreme Court retains the final authority, unlike in the American system, where states can interpret state laws as they see fit. With such a diverse population, it is necessary in some areas to have strict uniformity, so that there can be no dissent with interpretations between regions. Having a judicial system that does not differentiate between regional and federal law and courts, however, may invite some citizens to express disapproval at regions not having the final jurisdiction over disputes. If Canada is used the primary source for Pittonia’s judicial system, there will be no further issues past some hypothetical

The cultural dimensions of Canada and the Republic of Belarus provide insight as to why the structure and nature of the judicial systems differ from one another. However, before interpreting these dimensions, it is important to note that although the Republic of Belarus was established in 1994, it resembles Russia almost entirely in terms of culture. Therefore Hofstede’s study of Russia’s Cultural Dimensions is applicable to the Republic of Belarus. The Canadian structure and nature of its judicial system can be explained due to its high level of individualism (80) and low power distance (39). The high level of individualism can explain the reason why alternative to courts are accepted in Canada. People expect to look out for themselves and

A complex organization of Federal and State governmental divisions establishes the US Legal System. Every state has its own court system, plus the federal government one, fifty-two in total. Each state has its own constitution, governmental structure, legal codes and judiciary system. The structural system of the State Courts changes depending on

The judicial system (judiciary or court system) is the state machinery for resolving conflicts between individuals or individuals and the state, according to law. It can also be define as the system of courts that interprets and applies the law in the name of the state. A distinctive feature of the Canadian judicial system is its unitary character which distinguishes it from other federal nation including the United States which have a dual court system. This kind of system separates legislative powers along federal lines by creating federal and state courts for federal and state laws respectively. The founders of Canada's legal system adopted the rationale of federalism for distribution of legislative authorities,

Judges has various roles and2 duties in the constitutional democracy of Canada. They interpret the law, assess the evidence presented, and control how hearings and trials unfold in their courtrooms. Most important of all, judges are impartial decision-makers in the pursuit of justice. (Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association, n.d.). The Canadian Judiciary is an adversarial system of justice and the legal cases are challenged between opposing sides, which assures that evidences and legal disputes will be completely and forcefully presented. The judge, however, remains above the all these problems, providing a totally independent and unbias assessment of the facts and how the law can be implemented to these facts.

In America 's legal system there are five sources of law. Those include constitutions, pieces of legislation, executive orders, rules and regulations made by administrative bodies, and judicial decisions. They each have a very distinguish relationship with each other. Each source go together hand in hand to make up constitution and it 's amendments when it comes to the regulations of the law. Also when discussing which is better for today 's usage, common law or code law the choice is obvious. In today 's age I think common law works better because it is more progressive and fits with America 's ideal not super strict government. Where is code law is more old fashioned and has much more old ideas to

Within the last three decades or so, American policing has made great strides and has seen significant changes in both it’s practice and thinking. The study and interpretation of current practices, new theories and perspectives on policing, in combination with the worlds technological advancements have all brought about these changes in todays policing. In fact, this past decade has proven to be the most innovative. “The following information is a brief overview of the key elements and research results for the most notable police strategies; the standard model of policing, community policing, broken windows policing, hot spots policing, Compstat, and problem-oriented policing” (Santos, 2005).

Many changes have occured to police forces throughout the twentieth century. Rapid technology developments have effected the way the police work, providing them with new and increasingly more complex equipment. Wheres the nineteenth century police officer had neither a radio or a walkie-talkie, reling heavily on a whistle to alert collegues to the scene of a crime; two-way radios had been introduced in the 1920s. This meant that officers could now communicate with the police station and respond rapidly. The wallkie-talkie, in use from the 1950’s, also gave immediate access to fellow officers. Therefore officers decisions could now be made quickly and directly, following