The fault in this lies in the motivation behind the justices’ decisions; with judicial activism, it is nearly impossible to view law as objective and free of bias. Many fear that in acting as policy makers, justices bring their own partialities and beliefs into account instead of allowing the literal interpretation of the Constitution guide their decisions. On the other hand, judicial restraint can also be used when deciding cases. Judicial restraint refers to justices interpreting the United States Constitution word for word, keeping from bringing their own beliefs or biases into account and most importantly refraining from assuming the role of policy maker. Under judicial restraint, justices work to uphold the laws that are already in place and to maintain the laws as they stand except in the event that they are blatantly unconstitutional.
The court shall allow the plea provided the following requisites concur: (a) The lesser offense is necessarily included in the offense charged; and (b) The Plea must be within the consent of both the offended party and the prosecutor. The consent of the offended party will not be required if said party, despite due notice, fails to appear during the arraignment. Section 2 of rule 116 of the Rules of Court present the basic requisites upon which plea bargaining may be made. The rules however, used the word may in the second sentence of Section 2, denoting an exercise of discretion upon the trial court on whether to allow the accused to make such plea. Trial courts are exhorted to keep in mind that a plea of guilty for a lighter offense than that actually charged is not supposed to be allowed as a matter of bargaining or compromise for the convenience of the accused.
Part one: I strongly believe that judge Foster’s view is more persuasive. The judges should take into consideration the legislative intent when judges interpret and apply statutes due to the fact that words do not always show the intent that the legislative branch had when it created a statute. As a result, the goal of the statute will not be reached. The fact that words sometimes do not convey the real message of it is really important when it comes to criminal system. It will never be fair to punish a person when the judge knows that the words existing in the statute are not what the legislative branch intended to punish.
As such, equality law seeks to remedy a problem through imposing certain injunctions in order to solve a problem. However, one important aspect of the 7th amendment is that it bars the judges from overruling the findings of a jury unless there was such a violation of a common law; hence, in all but a few cases, the ruling of the jury will be regarded as a violation of the 7th amendment. Further, the 7th amendment makes specifications that the jury has to be unanimous in all civil cases. Therefore, in my own view, the 7th amendment is beneficial since it protects people from the rights that are abused by the government. It achieves this by ensuring that the government cannot simply lock people up in jails or prions; hence by doing so it protects the citizens from unnecessary tyranny by the government.
Confrontation clause deals with the witness in a trial. The defendant now has the right to have the witness directly involved be brought to the stand. Friends wouldn’t tell the truth, they would lie on behalf of the defendant that the are close friends with. It makes court cases more difficult in properly prosecuting a possible criminal. Compulsory Process Clause allows the for witnesses to be called to the stand to either defend the defendant, however witnesses that have had felony or treason cases are not allowed to be witnesses.
Without this the whole system would collapse if lawyers choose not to represent based on feelings and not facts. Lawyers have other obligations as well when it comes to representing clients. If a defense attorney believes a client is guilty they must still protect the client from abuse of the eighth amendment. The eighth amendment states that no cruel and unusual punishment may be inflicted. If a client is being prosecuted for breaking and entry it is the lawyers
This distinction in the law is termed as functions. According to the amendment, the judge is designated to try the law whereas the jury can try according to facts. This distinguishing between the law and fact is important as it gives the legitimacy to the decree of juries. At the same time, the amendment prevents from violation of the justified legal anticipations of the
Traditionally, the adversarial system’s function in criminal court was to resolve disputes by unfolding the truth behind the dispute. The system, effectively implemented would afford each party the opportunity to effectively argue their case. Though this solution seems admirable and well intended, studies suggest that, as practiced today, the adversarial is not effective in uncovering the truth in legal proceedings (Findley, 2012). This paper will attempt to answer the question as to whether the truth is a quality that the courts would forfeit in the pursuit of justice under the adversarial criminal court system. The first section of the paper will address the meaning of truth as it is applied to the research.
THE IMPORTANT OF JUDICIARY MAKES JUDGEMENTS One of the important of judiciary is it makes judgments on whether the actions taken by individuals or even by the government, is in accordance with law. Those who break the law can be arrested and brought to court to be judged as to whether the person is guilty or not. There are times when people can take action against the government including the governing body, the legislator, and the executive, but if they feel that these people have not abided by the law. So in such cases, it is for the judiciary to decide. The judiciary is a special body in our society which may not be criticized.