I will vote for the constitutional statute. Even though the ruling will be against what I believe, I will have to understand the fact that not all have the same religious faith as mine, and I have to consider their rights. In this manner, I will use the principle of utility or the happiness for the majority while making the ruling or justifying my vote against my religious belief. I would recommend placing more emphasis on training more legal assistance to handle non-criminal cases. I would also recommend making such a position more lucrative than they are on a current basis. For instance, Abadinsky (2014) discusses that increasing salaries and also improving the environment under which the assistants operate as they handle the non-criminal cases can work better to attract more of such people to the positions.
In my view, the civil law system used in Continental Europe can be superior to adversarial that the United States uses. Even though the two methods rely on evidence, civil law from continental Europe tries to eliminate subjective ruling by placing judges as mere arbitrators. However, the adversarial system that the U.S uses gives judges more power, and this could lead to bias where judges are subjective to the case. Legal education is experiencing a lot of challenges, and the best way to improve it is to strive and match legal education with law practice. In most cases, the law students are less exposed to the reality of the circumstances they may find during their legal practice as they based more on theories ( Abadinsky, 2014). Therefore, law schools should systematically implement contextual insights into their curriculum and culture.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The courts can be fairer if they can treat every person appropriate during the trial. In most cases, people who have the best lawyers win the case. In other places, men are likely to get more intense punishment on the same case or ruling than women. When the court stops judging based on some factors such as background, race, gender, and other factors that make people different in society, they can be fairer. I think the use of the arbitrator is much fairer to the parties that present the case. The reason is that process of selecting the arbitrator's demands that the person must be neutral and have the trust of the two parties in the case. Therefore, the degree of confidence their people have given them the right to rule in a justified manner.
The American judicial system is not fair because, to some extent, factors such as gender, race, and religions define the severity of the punishments a person gets from the legal system. The legal system is cruel to those that fall under the minority group than the white. Further, Islamic individuals are less subjected to justice than others( Abadinsky, 2014). I think I will go for the appointed counsel because these people have a reputation within the court to defend by winning my case. For the public defender, they have a secure job, and they have a lot of cases to handle. These people have less pressure to win because the government rarely follows cases the public defenders handle. Therefore, according to Abadinsky (2014), they may not do better than the appointed counsel.
If I can change the history, I would change the idea of appointing the federal judges and justices and turn to the election to select the judges and justice to rule the country's judicial system. Appointing justices and judges bring a situation where these people work in a politically influenced environment, thus limiting their practice and rendering justice while making the rulings. Though the juvenile system is critical, I do not think they consider the idea of mental ill-health while ruling on the cases. Therefore, I would adjust the system by having mandatory screening for all people that undergo the juvenile system before they face trial.
Reference
Abadinsky, H. (2014). Law, Courts, and Justice in America . Waveland Press.
