Elements of the Legal System

Criminal courts are a very important arm of exercising democracy the American society. Their work is to give confidence to the citizens that their rights can be upheld and justice prevails. Criminal courts ensure that the society is protected and every difference or dispute can be solved with respect to the law (Crespo, 2016). This is the overall function of the courts which is accomplished through various sub-functions such as enforcing the criminal law and upholding the rights of each individual in the society. The other role is solving disputes amongst citizens and the state and also ensuring that all the state agencies are bounded within the law. In this case, the role of the criminal court is to ensure that the victims receive justice by penalizing the two accused teenagers. The independence of the judicial arm of the government ensures that no external influence can affect the way rulings are made and makes the judges stick strictly to the law (Crespo, 2016).

Attorney prosecutors play a crucial role in the trial process of the accused. Their work is generally to represent the plaintiffs in the criminal courts of the United States.  During the trial in the courtroom, their work is to prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is done by presenting enough evidence collected and also presents the witnesses to a case to deliver their evidence until he convinces the jury that the accused is guilty (BERNAUER & VATTER, 2012).  With this regard, it is the role of the attorney prosecutor to ensure that the court has any relevant evidence before sentencing. The prosecution attorney, in this case, presented the gathered evidence such as tattooing, and the correlation between the scene and the accused before the court.  They also present the accused circumstances, the background information as well as any previous convictions which are meant to help the court to determine the kind of sentence fits the accused. The attorney prosecutor also provides assistance to the court in referring to the relevant legislation and ensures that the prosecution process is error free (BERNAUER & VATTER, 2012).

The defense attorney, on the other hand, advocates and represents the accused throughout the trial. His work starts by hearing and firmly understanding the case and plans ahead about the defendant’s side. If the evidence presented is obtained illegally or maybe it is false, the defense attorney claims the accused rights and may find a way to escape the conviction like in this case the defense attorney confirms that the investigators never had a written permission of interviewing the parents of the teenagers. The defense attorney usually advises the accused on the best options, especially when handling pleas. It is also his responsibility to let the accused make his or her final decision on whether to continue with the appeal or not (BERNAUER & VATTER, 2012).

This case is driven by the consensual model of ruling because the two sides; the prosecution and the defense perfectly know and understand the typical crime and their corresponding sentences. The consensual model is usually very fast and that why the judges make an immediate rule despite the efforts of the defense attorney. The evidence against the teenagers is so strong to be debated upon and therefore the defense and prosecutor have worked cooperatively to establish the criminal justice. Considering that the accused had other planned murders, the rulings of the court were based more on crime control failure to which more incidences would be expected. The life and death sentences are criminal penalties that the court uses to deter the two teenagers from committing other murders on the permanent basis (BERNAUER & VATTER, 2012).

The jury is usually considered as one of the most important and essential parts of the legal system which deals with minority cases. It is commonly referred to as the finder of fact because its main role is to determine the truth and falsity to prove whether a defendant is guilty or not. Its role is centered at making special verdicts or general verdicts based on the findings that are gathered (Valente, 2016).

The overall duty or the function of the jury is to decide whether or not the accused is guilty on the basis of facts about the case. The jury is responsible for ensuring that the verdicts of the court rulings are dependent on only the present evidence introduced before the court. This ensures full satisfaction of the jury that the accused is guilty and beyond reasonable doubt he or she deserves the penalty. In reference to its obligation in the court rulings, jurors are bound to observe various aspects the all the predicaments. First, they must outline and decide facts about the case respond by taking directions from the law and remain uninfluenced to uphold independence.  It is also the duty of the jury to maintain a high level of confidentiality (Valente, 2016). In the United States, it is the obligation of the jury to respond to the judge when called upon to dig deeper in making factual and reliable findings concerning certain specific cases. In some cases, juries are required to make suggestions for the sentences and penalties to the judge as an advisory jury but still the overall power to rule out is in the hands of the judge. In the United States, juries in some states like Tennessee and Texas are charged or obligated to find guilt or innocence of a defendant (Valente, 2016).

The American community is a democratic one and therefore the jury trial is very important. Among the many reasons why the jury is important to the American society, the most standing reasons are discussed. First, the jury trial is a constitutional right. It prevents tyranny whereby the government’s oppressive power is limited. Being a constitutional right, the jury is able to lead the rulings into a thorough consideration which one judge could be biased. Jury trials are at times referred to as the voice of people in the American society because it allows the citizens to take part of the governing process (Valente, 2016). Secondly, the jury in the United States is a unique part of democracy. Considering that only a few countries have the jury system in the judicially, juries make the American society be unique and an aspect to be proud of. Lastly, the jury is an important system to the American society because it offers a peaceful way of resolving disputes. The peacefulness comes in due to the fact that jury cannot be corrupted. It would be easier to corrupt a judge but would be very difficult to corrupt 12 jurors. The Americans have therefore considered the jury system as a just and peaceful methodology to which issues like divorce and employment would be best finalized (Valente, 2016). 

From various cases when a jury makes the final decision, I am inclined to doubt the perception of effectiveness in court rulings by the jury systems. This is because juries may at times be carried away by the current prejudices in the American society and make decisions that are unlawful (Valente, 2016). Since the jury involves a decision of 12 members, the group pressure may influence the decision made which may be biased. I also consider them as less successful because complex cases require expertise knowledge to rule out and the jury may not reach the required standards of professionalism. In this case, the jury was not successful because the facts about the incidence were not clearly outlined and the witnesses lack enough and reliable evidence. It was, therefore, hard for the jury to decide on the case on the basis of facts (Valente, 2016).

During the trial, both the prosecutor and the defense attorneys had done a good work because the case was ruled from the little evidence that was available. However, the appeal of the convictions was disgust to the legislation arm of the government (BERNAUER & VATTER, 2012). The acceptance of Alford plea made by the two defendants was unwise because the court did not consider some implications those results from such kind of a plea. The public is likely to lose trust with the judicial system in other future cases because the failure of caring guilt transfers the liability of the incidence to the victims. The release of these teenagers was a sign of ignorance to the witnesses’ claims which were supposed to be investigated up to prove their reliability (BERNAUER & VATTER, 2012).

The ruling of this case shows that the attorneys are not reliable people whom citizens can depend on. The prosecutor attorney is seen to have an imbalanced intellectual curiosity when he strongly holds that the accused is guilty (BERNAUER & VATTER, 2012). The acceptance of the appeal, on the other hand, show the uncertainty of the original decision and this creates mistrust in the legal system. The defense attorney also demonstrates a sense of weakness because he could not defend the accused despite the prosecutor lacking enough evidence against the teenagers. The last negative implication about attorneys is less qualification. The court rulings of the case show some inaccuracy because neither of the attorneys is sure of what the facts are. The fact that the court accepts their plea means that the initial sentence was not based on valid facts concerning the murder incidence (BERNAUER & VATTER, 2012).

On a positive light, the public may develop trust in the public due to effective communication of the prosecutor attorney. This is because he could easily win the case without sufficient evidence just because of how effective he communicated against the accused. The public may also appreciate the integrity of the two attorneys whereby they were able to represent the interests of the clients in an amazing way (Bibas, 2003).

The Alford pleas would be favored by the prosecutor on the basis of advantageous implications such as fastening the rulings and saving on the cost for the defendants. On the other hand, the favoring of the defense attorney would be favored by the facts of innocence, reformation of the defendants and other social norms of the society (Bibas, 2003). The Alford pleas, however, should not be accepted in the criminal courts because those held responsible will utilize it to escape liability. Even the procedural approached may be biased and I scarcely agree that it could play any significant role in restoring justice to the victims. For the sake of the future similar cases, the court should not allow the Alford pleas because they will undermine justice and liability of everyone’s actions (Bibas, 2003).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Manuel Crespo, A. (2016). SYSTEMIC FACTS: TOWARD INSTITUTIONAL AWARENESS IN CRIMINAL COURTS. Harvard Law Review, 129(8), 2050-2117.

BERNAUER, J., & VATTER, A. (2012). Can't get no satisfaction with the Westminster model? Winners, losers and the effects of consensual and direct democratic institutions on satisfaction with democracy. European Journal Of Political Research, 51(4), 435-468. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.2011.02007.x

Valente, N. D. (2016). Quiet No Longer: Opening the Door for Empowered Juries and Transparency. Review Of Litigation, 35(1), 135-160.

Bibas S., (2003) Harmonizing Substantive Criminal Law Values and Criminal Procedure: The Caser of Alford and Nolo Contendere Pleas Cornell Law Review