On Sunday mornings, you wake up early and nothing is on television besides Judge Judy, Divorce Court, or Judge Mathis. The Judges are ruthless and do not seem to have sympathy for anyone. They often yell to boost the ratings of the show. This is merely just an exaggeration of how the court systems work. Judges don’t only have sympathy for the defendants that aren’t financially stable enough to pay for their lawsuit. They are also willing to come to agreements on how much the defendants are able and willing to pay the plaintiff. This is important for the reason people get nervous thinking about court and because from television that’s how we perceive court systems On the day of February 22nd around 1:30 p.m., my friends Brady, Maxx, Ethan, …show more content…
I found out right away that I was mistaken, there are actually various floors with several rooms on each floor. I also expected the judge to be strict on all of the rules and shouting at the plaintiff or defendant, which is not true because the judge we saw was relaxed and wanted to settle the issues between both parties, so they could come together and both be content about the end result. The biggest expectation I had was the judge using his gavel to tell everyone to be quiet when the parties are arguing and saying ‘order in the court”. This was an expectation that was sadly mistaken. The judge didn’t even use his gavel and didn’t raise his voice the slightest. On those Sunday mornings when you’re watching Judge Judy, you believe that she is there to figure out the conflict and what is right and, but for the most part, it seems like she uses her own opinions of two parties to come to a decision on the case. If the defendant argued with her too much, she would rule in favor of the plaintiff. Going to a real courtroom and seeing how Judge Freeman interacts with his parties in the case proved all of my previous understanding of how judges act
After listening to both sides present their case the judge will issue a ruling on the defendant’s
As the climate in society has changed and new trends in lawmaking were established, the caseload for the federal court increased dramatically. The new concepts of President Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” pushed Prohibition and the “New Deal” pushed for changes and additions to the federal judiciary. This forced the creation of specialized courts and the addition the appellate courts (paraphrase). In the metropolitan area is where the federal judges are seeing a huge increase. They have to set civil trials back months or sometimes years to make space for criminal cases.
A jury is not trained to decide someone’s fate, which is why a judge, as a trained lawyer, should choose the
Our legal system allows judges to make important decisions on their own, which is a huge responsibility, and if it falls into the wrong hands, there could be severe
A District Attorney plea bargain, files a lawsuit against people.
The McMartin family and employees, witnesses, evidence are all processed in the courtroom. The courtroom is backed by many courthouse workers behind the scenes to ensure the process is smooth. The center of the defense case is lawyer Danny Davis, who takes advantage of every opportunity and seen agreeing to defend the McMartin trial in court. The DA failed to give supporting evidence to defense attorney Davis.
Alex Frost Values: Law & Society 9/23/2014 The Hollow Hope Introduction and Chapter 1 Gerald Rosenberg begins his book by posing the questions he will attempt to answer for the reader throughout the rest of the text: Under what conditions do courts produce political and social change? And how effective have the courts been in producing social change under such past decisions as Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education? He then works to define some of the principles and view points 'currently' held about the US Supreme court system.
Each criminal trial has various actors that play different roles, which essentially determine the outcome of the
When people think of a good judge they typically think of somebody who is fair, not bias and has some sort of experience. However, in today’s society, particularly in the United States, our judicial selection methods are not made to select judges on their ability to reason well and rule impartially (Carter and Burke, 6). On top of that, judges have no actual training before they become part of the judiciary. The only training they receive is in school when they are studying the law. Sometimes when they pursue an apprenticeship with a judge they also get a little bit more experience or insight into a judge’s job.
Allison, You make an abundant amount of sound statements that I agree with whole heartedly. The justice system is comprised of many agencies as you mentioned, but it is the courthouse setting in which justice is administered. Within the courthouse there are several actors of those as mentioned by Neubauer “Judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys are the most important actors in the courthouse. Defendants and victims are also important because they are the source of cases for the courts.” The individuals deemed the most important are those who administer and fight for justice be it any of your examples in which you state bring these actors of the courthouse together to ensure justice is achieved.
I never thought this would have happened. Why did my life have to turn this way? Those were the thoughts in my head when I found out my parents were going to get a divorce. Why did it have to happen to me? I was a cheerful, ten year old boy who never fretted about anything until that point in my life.
The judge was very observant with the defendants and at times had a good sense of humor. He would often ask the defendants why they did what they did, and if they had ever thought about the position they were in, and what this might do to their children. The judge was very understanding and reasoned with most defendants. He wanted to get a sense of what the defendant was thinking, and often gave good advice to those he felt deserved it. He appeared very relaxed and at
In hard cases, judges are not legislating, as Hart’s positivists assert, they are inducing based on principle. Judges have a duty not only to apply the rules, but also to make sure that the legal system is consistent with the principles of the society. When judges are said to legislate, they are not making the rules but discovering them. [20] According to Dworkin understanding the role of the courts is to defend the rights of citizens from the likelihood of unfair rules or other circumstances in which the written laws do not satisfactorily defend their natural rights.
It was an entirely different experience. The courtroom was very small and there were only four other people in the room. There were lawyers coming in to the courtroom with their clients and they were waiting for their chances. However, I found the court proceedings very interesting. It was strange to see the garbs they were wearing.
Different judges will have different interpretation of cases; hence, they may bind a single case with various precedents making it more difficult to pass a judgment. In this type of situation even competent judges may find it complicated to decide on the ‘ratio decidendi’. Nevertheless, there are a lot of case laws and deciding which case law best appropriates to a case is not always an easy task, as it is time consuming and very stressful to find the most suitable precedent. Therefore, not only the doctrine of judicial precedent has the disadvantage of being complex, while the judges are discussing which case law to apply to a specific case, justice is at the same time being delayed.