HW#1: Critical Thinking Questions
I would like to be tried in a country that applies the common law system. The common law is flexible and can guarantee an individual more justice than civil law, which is rigid. In a common-law dispensation, judges are allowed to make rulings based on past precedence established by judges (Neubauer & Meinhold, 2016). Therefore, it guarantees uniformity and allows for extra room for reference and deliberation. Civil law, on the other hand, strongly relies on codified laws developed by the legislature.
Legislatures and courts have been slow to act on issues revolving around computer crimes and pornography. Several factors have contributed to this laxity, including the anonymity involved, difficulty in an investigation, and the personal liberties that come to play. When it comes to pornography, significant attention has been placed on protecting children from manipulation (Neubauer & Meinhold, 2016). Cybercrime laws have also been created to protect users of information technological tenets.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Multiple components of law can create conflicts, especially when they provide contradictory outcomes. As such, this can result in inconsistencies that present conflicts in law. Policy leaders can use the multiple law components as loopholes to defend or criticize specific aspects of an issue (Neubauer & Meinhold, 2016). The leaders tend to rely on areas of the law that either support or oppose their assertions. Such a scenario can create further controversy due to a lack of consensus.
Components of law that are likely to receive criticism in public debates include those involving the people's fundamental rights as enshrined in the bill of rights. A component of the law that directly challenges the veracity or integrity of the Amendments might elicit critical debates (Neubauer & Meinhold, 2016). However, components that do not touch on the people's inherent rights are less likely to receive criticism.
Discussion #2 Due: Critical Thinking Question 3, p. 179
The underrepresentation of women and racial minorities on the bench has significant implications on the dispensation of justice. The interests of the minorities must be taken care of not only on the bench but also on the juries. The face of the bench must reflect the United States as a nation. Significant attention should be placed on gender and racial representation to mitigate instances of bias and prejudice. Ensuring that women and minorities are represented creates a sense of alternative voice (Neubauer & Meinhold, 2016). For instance, women are better poised to understand reproduction and abortion issues from the first-person point of view. People of color are also likely to understand the strains that black or Hispanic defendants or plaintiffs face and how this ultimately affects their lives. Therefore, benches across the country must enhance diversity as the basis for the dispensation of justice.
Discussion #1 Due: Critical Thinking Question 4, p. 76
Federal court caseloads can be reduced using several means and strategies. The first strategy is to increase the number of judges at the federal levels. Increasing the number of judges means that each case can be handled more swiftly, and justice dispensed quickly. The increase in the number of judges must correspond with the creation of more courts and facilities that assist the process of dispensation. The second strategy would be to transfer some cases from the federal to the state jurisdictions (Neubauer & Meinhold, 2016). All cases involving states should be handled at the level of the state. Similarly, small cases such as misdemeanor and petty crimes should be transferred to the state's level. My choices show that I belong to a political thought that stresses on the importance of federalism. States should be given more power and the ability to handle justice issues.
HW #3: Critical Thinking Question 2, p. 238
The Miranda v. Arizona was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court, which held that suspects must be informed of their right to an attorney and their privilege against self-incrimination. Therefore, it meant that information obtained during police interrogation is null and void unless the person was informed of their right to consult their attorney. The defendant must understand these provisions, including the right to remain silent. The law was interpreted as a paradigm shift in the Fifth Amendment provisions, which was traditionally viewed as a protector against compulsions to confess ( Sumption, J. 2019). The ruling set precedence and further redefined police practice as the police ensured to provide suspects with the Miranda warning before an arrest. Initially, the provision was received with immense criticism, but Americans slowly received and incorporated it as a favorable legal provision. Many people believed that the Miranda provision would curtail the process of dispensing justice as it narrowed the realms of evidence collection. However, many people slowly understood that the landmark decision reduced state power to wrongly prosecute individuals that might not have been competent to provide information at the time of the arrest.
HW #2: Critical Thinking Question 3, p. 144
My state has a legal ethics requirement. Lawyers are required to demonstrate professional values such as honesty and integrity while practicing. The lawyer-client relationship is highly valued and should be treated with the privacy and confidentiality required. Ethical practice for lawyers involves avoiding conflict of interest (Neubauer & Meinhold, 2016). Lawyers in my states are supposed to act as advocates and defenders of human rights. Also, lawyers that go against this ethical provision can be punished based on the rules and guidelines developed by the relevant legal authority. The American Bar Association is the main legal authority for lawyers practicing in my state. After confirmed violations of ethical guidelines, lawyers can be expelled or suspended from the bar. Probation and reprimanding of lawyers remain possibilities.
References
Neubauer, D. W., & Meinhold, S. S. (2016). Judicial process: Law, courts, and politics in the United States. Nelson Education.
Sumption, J. (2019). Trials of the State: Law and the Decline of Politics . Profile Books.
