An Overview of the U.S. Legal System

Chapter 2

An Overview of the U.S. Legal System
The law must be stable, but it must not stand still. —Roscoe Pound

The United States Supreme Court in Washington, DC, welcomes visitors to tour the building and observe the Court in session. As a public place the terrace of the Court is a frequent site of demonstrations.

© Bill Ross/CORBIS

35
978-0-495-83114-3, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System, 4e, J. Scott Harr and Kären M. Hess - © Cengage Learning

36

Section I A Foundation for Understanding Constitutional Law

Do You Know . . . a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

What two prominent theories about the underlying purpose of law are? What the basic purpose of the American legal system is? What the scales of justice symbolize in law? When common law began, what it is based on and what it is synonymous with? What stare decisis requires? How the Constitution ensures individual liberty? Why American law is said to be a living law? Where statutory law originates? The difference between a crime and a tort? What two main functions are served by courts? On what two levels the judicial system operates? Who officers of the court are? What doctrines govern whether a case will be heard in court? What the three components of the criminal justice system are? The juvenile justice system? What the main similarity and difference between the criminal justice system and the juvenile justice system are?

a

Can You Define? adversarial judicial system amicus briefs appellate jurisdiction case law codified law common law comparative law concurrent jurisdiction conflict theory consensus theory crimes exclusive jurisdiction general jurisdiction jurisdiction limited jurisdiction mootness ordinances original jurisdiction penal codes petition for certiorari procedural law promulgate ripeness doctrine social contract standing stare decisis status offenses statutory law substantive law tort venue

Introduction
This chapter describes the American legal system and how it operates. Through understanding how it operates comes an appreciation of the crucial role the U.S. Constitution plays in achieving the primary goals of the framers of the Constitution—liberty, freedom and fairness. You will also learn the term that embodies these concepts and assures they will remain: due process. When examining the overall legal system, you may find it, like the Constitution itself, to be overwhelming and complex. It can be, but it doesn’t have to be. You learn about something as intimidating as the American legal system one concept at a time. Start with understanding the basic purpose of the legal system. Once you understand the Why’s, the What’s will become more logical.
978-0-495-83114-3, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System, 4e, J. Scott Harr and Kären M. Hess - © Cengage Learning

Chapter 2 An Overview of the U.S. Legal System

37

The chapter begins with a discussion of the purpose of the U.S. legal system and a description of law and how it has developed throughout the centuries, including the important development of common law, the concept of stare decisis and a discussion of American Law as living law. This discussion is followed by a description of categories of law, often overlapping, found in the U.S. legal system. Next is a discussion of the components of the legal system and the officers of the court. The chapter concludes with an explanation of the adversarial nature of the legal system, a comparison of the criminal and juvenile justice systems, and a look at the emerging influence of U.S. law beyond our borders.

Theories about and the Purpose of the Legal System
Futurist Joel Barker defines a paradigm as a boundary or parameter that outlines a rule and is based on experience. Sociologist Max Weber contends that the primary purpose of law is to regulate human interactions—to support social function. Combining these two views leads to the concept that a society’s legal paradigm defines the behavioral boundaries of that culture. As law evolves, different theories emerge to explain its development. People want to know not only what the law is but also why it exists as such. One theory is natural law, which suggests people should not create law in conflict with the natural order. Legal positivists suggest law is strictly a response to what is occurring at the moment. There are many other theories filling volumes that the reader may wish to explore independently. To present a solid base from which to develop an understanding of law and its development, this text focuses on the basic premise that throughout history law has regulated human interactions for different reasons: to protect society’s interests, to deter antisocial behavior, to enforce moral beliefs, to uphold individual rights, to support those in power and to punish lawbreakers or seek retribution for wrongdoing. Although many theories exist, two very different views address the purpose of laws. a Two prominent theories about the underlying purpose of the law are consensus theory and conflict theory.

Consensus theory holds that individuals in a society agree on basic values, on what is inherently right and wrong. Laws express these values. Consensus theory dates back at least to Plato and Aristotle. Society, in general, agrees on what is right and wrong and makes laws to prohibit deviant behavior. Consensus theory was expanded on by French historian-philosopher Montesquieu (1689–1755). His philosophy focused on the social contract whereby free, independent individuals agree to form a society and to give up a portion of their individual freedom to benefit the security of the group. Later, Emile Durkheim (1858–1917) described social solidarity as the shared values of a society, its “collective conscience.” The Durkheimian perspective saw punishment as revenge and a means to restore and solidify the social order. A second prominent theory regarding the underlying purpose of the law, conflict theory, is not as humanitarian. Conflict theory holds that laws are established to keep the dominant class in power. (Recall that the framers of our Constitution were the socially, politically and economically powerful men in the New World.)

consensus theory • holds that individuals in a society agree on basic values, on what is inherently right and wrong, and that laws express these values social contract • a philosophy proposed by French historianphilosopher Montesquieu, whereby free, independent individuals agree to form a society and to give up a portion of their individual freedom to benefit the security of the group conflict theory • holds that laws are established to keep the dominant class in power, in contrast to the consensus theory

978-0-495-83114-3, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System, 4e, J. Scott Harr and Kären M. Hess - © Cengage Learning

38

Section I A Foundation for Understanding Constitutional Law

The roots of this theory are found in Marx and Engels’ Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848):
The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an interrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended in either a revolutionary reconstruction of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

Rather than regarding punishment as a way to provide social solidarity, Marx regarded punishment as a way to control the lower class and preserve the power of the upper class. This rationale has its roots in the Middle Ages, the Renaissance and the Reformation and into the nineteenth century. During those times, society was divided into a small ruling class, a somewhat larger class of artisans and a much larger class of peasants. Harsh laws kept the “rabble” under control. Conflict theory is used by some sociologists and criminologists to explain how laws protect the interests and values of the dominant groups in a society. Walker et al. (2004, pp. 19–20) suggest:
Conflict theory explains racial disparities in the administration of justice as products of broader patterns of social, economic, and political inequality in U.S. society. These inequalities are the result of prejudicial attitudes on the part of the white majority and discrimination against minorities in employment, education, housing, and other aspects of society. . . . Conflict theory explains the overrepresentation of racial and ethnic minorities in arrest, prosecution, imprisonment, and capital punishment as both the product of these inequalities and an expression of prejudice against minorities.

Chapter 1 discussed the challenge facing the framers of the Constitution to balance the rights of individuals against the rights of society. Recollections of the tyranny of British rulers prompted the framers of the Constitution to build in many safeguards against any such tyranny in the United States. Nonetheless, to avoid anarchy, a country of laws had to be established. Consider this challenge: to meet the needs of the individual and the government—a strong, but not excessive, system of law and order. a The basic purpose of the U.S. legal system is to ensure fairness in balancing individual and societal rights and needs, while preventing excessive government power.

Achieving a workable system that balances the rights and needs of individuals as well as those of the society being served is no small task. In fact, many have died here, and continue to die in other countries, fighting for a system of government that provides the freedoms U.S. citizens now enjoy. a The scales of justice represent keeping individual and societal needs in balance.

Some argue that in striving to balance individual and societal rights and needs, the system itself has become so complicated that justice is compromised. Although the Constitution appears complex, it has been the many laws subsequently enacted to maintain the balance that have created the massively intricate body of law. In fact, to those not educated in the law, it might appear that legal loopholes abound, when in reality it is through the passage of new laws and the
978-0-495-83114-3, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System, 4e, J. Scott Harr and Kären M. Hess - © Cengage Learning

Chapter 2 An Overview of the U.S. Legal System

39

continual evolution of existing laws that the crucial balance is struck. Consider this analogy:
To balance a car tire, technicians put the tire on a machine that spins the tire around at high speed. If the tire wobbles, a lead weight is strategically placed on the tire’s edge to counter-balance the wobble. The tire is spun again. The first weight added might cause another more minor wobble elsewhere on the tire, so a second weight is applied to counter-balance that problem. This process of “spin the tire, add a weight” might go on several more times until a balance is achieved. This is how it is with the law. There is a constant effort to achieve a balance that requires counter-balancing with other fine-tuning efforts via additional laws. As societal changes require legal changes, this process proceeds in an endless, cyclic effort to achieve the balance of justice and due process.

Because the Constitution is meant to be basic, it is, by itself, easy to begin to understand. Students of the Constitution need to grasp the “bigger picture” before looking at the developments that have occurred in the past 200 years. Details can get in the way of understanding the system and how it works.

The Law Defined
Laws are rules with the power of the government behind them. In the United States, these rules are created by legislative bodies empowered by the people to pass laws. The term promulgate means to make law through such legal process. These laws reflect what the citizenry holds important, and they support the norms of society by enforcing its rules through legal consequences. As our society becomes more complex, so do the rules and the means by which they are enforced. American law must be enforced through legal means, that is, in accordance with the tenets of the Constitution.

promulgate • publish or announce officially a law or rule; to make law through a legal process

Development of the Law
The development of societal rules began the first time people congregated. When people are together, a norm is established so individuals know what is expected of them relative to the group as a whole. Whether via de facto rules, which naturally develop, or de jure results, which are promulgated, some order must arise to prevent chaos. Law generally evolves through four phases: 1. People come together seeking collective security, to collectively gather food and to satisfy other mutual needs. 2. They discover that they need rules to maintain order and their sense of security. 3. Inevitably some individuals break the rules. 4. Consequences are established for breaking the rules. Of great influence on the American legal system was early Roman law, dealing with basic rules related to economic, religious and family life contained in the Twelve Tables, written about 450 B.C. These rules were based on tradition and a quest for fairness. Another important period in Roman history was the rule of Emperor Justinian I (527–565 A.D.). His Justinian Code distinguished public and private laws and influenced legal thought throughout the Middle Ages.
978-0-495-83114-3, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System, 4e, J. Scott Harr and Kären M. Hess - © Cengage Learning

40

Section I A Foundation for Understanding Constitutional Law

Another significant influence on the development of the American legal system was the system of common law that evolved in England during the Middle Ages. Rather than smaller groups of people relying completely on local custom to determine their rules or law, the royal judges traveling through the territories began to apply a broader or national norm as cases were decided. In essence, the law became more common throughout the country. While initially unwritten, the decisions of the cases heard became the basis for how subsequent cases were to be decided. If a current case was similar enough to a preceding case, it was decided on the basis of the ruling in the previous case. Eventually, the cases were written down, and by 1300, recorded decisions were serving as precedent, making it easier to maintain the continuity of the developing legal system. common law • early English judge-made law based on custom and tradition; a legal system that, as in the United States, decides present cases on past decisions case law • common law approach, so named because it is based on previous cases; as a term in American law, it is synonymous with common law a Common law began as early English judge-made law, based on custom and tradition that was followed throughout the country. As a term in American law, it is synonymous with case law.

This system of common law is the basis for American law, in which the decisions made in past cases are routinely examined when new cases are considered. As English Parliament took over the role of promulgating law, the role of common-law courts changed. For example, offenses that once were considered personal wrongs, such as murder, rape and burglary, were redefined by English judges as crimes against the state because such transgressions disrupted the security of the entire community, not just the individual victimized. These redefinitions also made offenders subject to state control and punishment. Similarly, American common law also took on the role of interpreting and defining existing law, resulting in forging of new law. Common law still has the capacity to create law as well as interpret it and is integral to the present legal system. Common law depends heavily on predictability through precedent and the concept of stare decisis.

Stare Decisis
American common law has developed by building upon itself. Courts continue to rely on prior cases—directly, by implication or conceptually—to maintain continuity. This continuity not only results in current cases being decided in a way that relates to existing law (from past cases) but also provides the U.S. system of law development a stronger, more predictable basis on which to determine future cases. This concept is termed stare decisis, meaning that previous rules set forth in other cases shall be used to decide future cases. stare decisis • Latin for “to stand by decided matters” a Stare decisis is a common law doctrine requiring that precedent set in one case shall be followed in all cases having the same or similar circumstances, thus assuring consistency in the law.

Although this doctrine has its roots in early English law, the court in Moore v. City of Albany (1885) set forth: “When a court has once laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases where facts are substantially the same.” The idea behind this approach is to permit people to arrange their lives in accordance with the rules of society that can be best understood by knowing existing and past matters with the understanding that future matters will adhere to these concepts.
978-0-495-83114-3, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System, 4e, J. Scott Harr and Kären M. Hess - © Cengage Learning

Chapter 2 An Overview of the U.S. Legal System

41

By deciding each set of facts on a case-by-case analysis, the opportunity remains for law to continue emerging. Stare decisis is a Latin term that literally means “let the decision stand.” When a legal principle has been determined by a higher court, lower courts must apply it to all later cases containing the same or similar facts. Of course, one side will say the facts are the same, and so stare decisis dictates that a certain ruling prevail. The other side will assert that the facts are not exactly the same, and so a different result should be reached. The doctrine of stare decisis does not, however, prevent the law from growing, changing or even reconsidering itself in matters from which undesirable law resulted. Facts can and will be interpreted by those involved in a manner that will best suit society and the parties involved.

The Continuing Need for Law
People need laws to know what behavior is acceptable and to be able to deal with those who do not follow the law. In any society, laws should, in fact must, be obeyed for the good of all. In a sense, obedience to the law is voluntary. At least in countries that enjoy freedom, people are permitted to carry on with life’s activities, for the most part, as each sees fit. You perhaps obey traffic laws because you should. You most likely pay taxes because you should. You probably obey the many other laws of our society because you should, because as one member of a larger group, you know everyone benefits if laws are obeyed. Because consequences are part of orderly society, if you do exceed the speed limit, you might get a ticket. You have freedom to decide, including the decision to not obey laws. Rather than being purely punitive, laws set the parameters for social behavior, including the consequences for actions outside these parameters. Consequences for not complying are part of these parameters, but another critical issue arises when those making and enforcing the law act outside the law. Remember, the purpose of the Constitution remains to limit government power. The law itself controls government by restricting how and when government can and cannot interfere with citizens’ lives. The Latin phrase nulla poena sine lege translates to “no punishment without law.” Similarly, nullum crimen sine lege means “no crime without law.” a The Constitution ensures individual rights by limiting government power.

American Law Lives
Because the needs of any group change as that group itself changes, effective law should be flexible enough to respond to those changing needs, as introduced in Chapter 1. Human nature dictates that different needs are perceived at different times. For example, laws against witchcraft in colonial America are now perceived as unnecessary and inappropriate, as are laws permitting slavery or prohibiting women to vote. Similarly, laws pertaining to the use of drugs have changed as societal norms have changed, as evidenced by laws dealing with certain uses of marijuana (deemed less serious than a decade ago) or the increasing strictness of drunken-driving laws. The constitutional amendments dealing with prohibition provide a concrete example of how law can advance and retreat as needs and expectations change.
978-0-495-83114-3, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System, 4e, J. Scott Harr and Kären M. Hess - © Cengage Learning

42

Section I A Foundation for Understanding Constitutional Law

American law is referred to as a living law because it is not stagnant. It can be changed, expanded or rescinded to serve the overall system. Constitutional amendments are not easily or frequently added or removed. It takes two-thirds of each house of Congress, or conventions called by two-thirds of the state legislatures, to propose constitutional amendments. For an amendment to be ratified, three-fourths of the state legislatures or special conventions must agree. More than 7,000 amendments have been proposed in Congress, with only 33 of those passed and submitted to the states, where more fell short of the requisite vote. When amendments are passed, they reflect true societal changes. Since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, 17 amendments have been successfully ratified. Those considered most influential came after the Civil War: The Thirteenth Amendment (ratified in 1865) abolished slavery. The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) prevented the states from denying former slaves equal protection and due process of law. The Fifteenth Amendment (1870) ensured the right to vote regardless of race. The Nineteenth Amendment (1920) extended the right to vote to women. The Twenty-First Amendment (1933) repealed prohibition, which was ratified as the Eighteenth Amendment in 1919. a a a a a

a

American law is considered a living law because it can change along with society.

As you develop an understanding of what modern law is and how it developed from the needs of the earliest gatherings of people, it becomes obvious why it has reached its level of complexity. With more than 298 million people in the United States, and with the importance we place on pluralism, our needs are varied. A legal system that responds to such societal diversity and technological change becomes, out of necessity, complex. One of the complexities is that various categories of law exist, often overlapping in an effort to respond to society’s changing needs.

Categorizing Law
Different aspects of the law interact in ways that may appear confusing at first. For clarity, go back to the basics: What is the purpose of law? To limit government power and to provide societal guidelines. Why is there so much law? To strive for justice and due process in a growing and increasingly complex society with many different viewpoints. To further clarify, it helps to categorize the law by asking: Who? What? and How?

jurisdiction • the authority of a legislative body to establish a law, the authority of a particular court to hear certain types of cases or the authority a law has over a specific group of people statutory law • law set forth by legislatures or governing bodies having jurisdiction to make such law codified law • law specifically set forth in organized, structured codes such as the U.S. criminal code, state statutes or local ordinances

Who? (Jurisdiction)
This question is actually twofold: Who makes the law? and Who does the law affect? Who makes the law is whichever group has jurisdiction, or authority, to promulgate that law. It might be a legislative body, such as the elected or appointed members of the city council, county board and state or federal legislatures. Or it could be a court that makes decisions through case law or common law. Who the law affects are the people over which the law-making group has jurisdiction. a Statutory (codified) law is promulgated by legislatures or governing bodies.

Statutory law can also be referred to as codified law because it is set forth in organized, structured codes such as the U.S. Criminal Code or the criminal code

978-0-495-83114-3, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System, 4e, J. Scott Harr and Kären M. Hess - © Cengage Learning

Chapter 2 An Overview of the U.S. Legal System

43

of a specific state. Local jurisdictions, such as county or municipal levels, also enact their own specific codes, often referred to as ordinances. Of crucial importance is the fact that no statutory law, regardless of the level of jurisdiction, can violate the Constitution. A group need not be elected to have authority to promulgate law. Legislative bodies have the authority to appoint administrative groups to make rules that have the power of law. The reason administrative agencies may do so is twofold. First, legislative groups do not have time to address every issue that arises. Second, they often lack the knowledge to adequately address every issue that arises. So they appoint people who have the time and expertise. Examples of administrative agencies include federal regulatory agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration. Examples of state agencies include the fire marshal’s office or the state police licensing board. Other examples include county, city or other local groups, such as a metropolitan council, health department or even a park board. Remember that courts make law through their holdings that act as rules because of stare decisis. Whatever they have decided becomes the law and is relied on in subsequent cases. The fact that courts are making law, but for the most part are not elected to do so as are legislators, stirs debate. This is especially the case at the Supreme Court level and is why the ability of a president to appoint justices is so powerful. The legally enforceable rules that any court, legislative body or administrative agency may make depends on the jurisdiction granted them by law.

ordinances • laws or codes established at the local level, that is, the municipal or county level

How? (Procedural)
Substantive law establishes rules and regulations, as in traffic law. How the law is to be enforced is embodied in procedural law. For example, how and when police can stop people is governed by procedural law. The effects of substantive law being enforced in violation of law can result in serious consequences for the government. For example, the exclusionary rule (discussed in Chapter 8) prohibits evidence obtained in violation of a person’s constitutional rights (illegal search and seizure) to be used in court, no matter how incriminating. This is why it is crucial for criminal justice professionals to know the law and know when it changes. substantive law • establishes rules and regulations, as in traffic law procedural law • how the law is to be enforced, for example, how and when police can stop people

What? (Criminal or Civil)
This question asks whether the wrong considered is a public wrong or a private wrong. In other words, who is the victim? The answer affects several critical factors. Criminal law considers society the victim because, whenever a crime is committed, the act disrupts the community. Although one or possibly more than one victim is identifiable, if the community’s security is upset, all community members are considered victims. Society’s welfare has been violated. This is why the caption (name) of a criminal case is the government, representing the people, versus the defendant (e.g., United States v. Smith, State of Maine v. Jones). Wrongs that disrupt the status quo of the community are called crimes, and criminal laws are found in each state’s penal codes. If a dispute involves only individuals and affects only them, it is considered a civil case, and the wrong is called a tort. These cases are captioned with the name of the aggrieved party bringing the legal action, generally referred to as the plaintiff, versus the individual accused of causing the harm, generally referred to as the defendant. crimes • acts defined by federal or state statute or local ordinance that are punishable; wrongs against the government and the people it serves penal codes • criminal codes or laws tort • civil wrong by one individual against another, with the remedy most often being either an order by the court for particular action or compensation

978-0-495-83114-3, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System, 4e, J. Scott Harr and Kären M. Hess - © Cengage Learning

44

Section I A Foundation for Understanding Constitutional Law

Although there may be more than one plaintiff, as in the case of a class-action lawsuit, civil cases involve individuals, and the government usually is not involved. a Civil laws deal with wrongs against individuals—called torts. Criminal laws deal with wrongs against society—called crimes. An act may be both a tort and a crime.

A drunk driver causing a crash, for example, could be guilty of the crime of driving under the influence, as well as be held civilly liable for the injuries caused to others by the tort committed. This example also helps explain other differences between crimes and torts, including the burden of proof required and the desired outcome. In a criminal action, the government must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, which one could view as to a 99 percent degree of certainty. It does not mean without any doubt, because few decisions in life can be made with no doubts. This is the same standard applied to any of life’s major decisions—marriage, having children, divorce, taking a new job or undergoing surgery. Facts are gathered, decisions reached and action taken. The government is required to meet this high standard in proving its case because the consequences for the accused are so significant, including imprisonment or the ultimate sentence imposed, the death penalty. The system wants to be sure, to the highest degree possible, the government is right when the ultimate goal of the criminal justice system is punishment. In a civil action, the plaintiff has only to prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence, which means “more likely than not,” or a 51 percent level of certainty. This lower burden of proof exists in the civil arena for several reasons, a primary one being that the defendant does not face the same monumental loss of freedom as they do if they are found “guilty” in criminal court. Because the goal of the civil system is to right the wrong by making the victim or plaintiff “whole” again, civil damages are usually limited to financial awards or injunctions to return the plaintiff to where they were to begin with, for example, paying on a broken contract, removing a fence on someone else’s land or paying to compensate for a wrongful injury. The civil system also acknowledges that individuals have limited resources compared with the government and likely could not afford the experts often utilized during a criminal investigation, and their use would not be warranted. To return to the drunk-driving example, whereas the driver could be charged criminally because of the disruption caused to the community, the person injured in the crash could also sue civilly to recoup medical costs and compensate for injuries sustained. One decision does not depend on the other. In the infamous O.J. Simpson case, the defendant was acquitted on the criminal charges because the government could not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, but the plaintiffs in the civil case were successful in proving their case by a preponderance of the evidence.

The Components of the U.S. Legal System
This chapter provides a starting point for studying the Constitution by helping you understand the system that permits the law to serve society. Just like a complicated engine made of many individual parts, the legal system has many components that must work together to produce the desired result.
978-0-495-83114-3, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System, 4e, J. Scott Harr and Kären M. Hess - © Cengage Learning

Chapter 2 An Overview of the U.S. Legal System

45

Recall that Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution established the federal judicial system: “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” In addition, the congresses of the individual states have established state supreme courts and inferior courts. a The courts’ two main functions are to settle controversies between parties and to decide the rules of law that apply in the specific case.

The types of cases a court can hear depend on its jurisdiction. The term jurisdiction refers to The authority of a legislative body to establish a law or a court to hear a case. The authority a law has over a specific group of people. a a

Three levels of jurisdiction exist: federal, state and local. In addition, jurisdiction can be original or appellate. Original jurisdiction describes a court authorized to hear cases first, try them and render decisions. Such courts are often called trial courts. Appellate jurisdiction describes a court authorized to review cases and to either affirm or reverse the actions of a lower court. Courts may also have general or limited jurisdiction. As the names imply, courts with general jurisdiction may hear a wide range of cases; those of limited jurisdiction hear a much narrower range of cases. Further, courts may have exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction. Exclusive jurisdiction applies to courts that can hear only specific cases. Concurrent jurisdiction refers to two or more courts authorized to hear a specific type of case. Finally, jurisdiction may refer to a geographical area. A more precise term to describe the geographic area in which a case may be heard is venue. Venue refers to the place a specific case may come to trial and the area from which the jury is selected. With this understanding of the terminology describing the authority of specific courts, look next at the court system of the United States, beginning with the lowest level and continuing to the highest—the U.S. Supreme Court.

original jurisdiction • courts authorized to hear cases first, try them and render decisions appellate jurisdiction • describes a court authorized to review cases and to either affirm or reverse the actions of a lower court general jurisdiction • courts having the ability to hear a wide range of cases limited jurisdiction • restriction of the types of cases a particular court might hear exclusive jurisdiction • courts that can hear only specific cases concurrent jurisdiction • two or more courts authorized to hear a specific type of case venue • the geographic area in which a specific case may come to trial, and the area from which the jury is selected

The Court System
Just as the U.S. Constitution established the federal court system, state constitutions establish their own court systems with many variations from state to state. a The U.S. judicial system is two-tiered, consisting of state and federal court systems. Each includes specific levels of courts.

At either tier, three levels of courts function: a lower level or trial court, an appellate court and a court of last resort, or supreme court, as illustrated in Figure 2.1. The U.S. legal system was designed to provide individuals with a fair and just trial conducted under fair rules of procedure in an atmosphere of objectivity. These levels exist to assure that if either side thinks procedural rules were violated, they can appeal the case to a higher court. This appellate court can uphold the lower court’s finding, order a new trial or overturn/reverse/dismiss the charge.

The State Court System
Individual states establish a variety of lower courts with a variety of names. Figure 2.2 illustrates the state court system.
978-0-495-83114-3, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System, 4e, J. Scott Harr and Kären M. Hess - © Cengage Learning

46

Section I A Foundation for Understanding Constitutional Law

SUPREME COURT

APPELLATE COURT

TRIAL COURT (original court)

Figure 2.1

Levels in the State and Federal Court System

Lower Courts Lower courts include municipal courts, inferior courts of limited jurisdiction and county courts. Municipal courts hear ordinance violations, minor criminal cases, traffic cases and sometimes more major cases. Their authority is usually limited to the city or county in which the court is located. Inferior courts of limited jurisdiction include probate courts, family courts, police courts, justice of the peace courts and traffic courts. A few states still have police courts, courts that try misdemeanor offenses and conduct preliminary examinations to decide whether evidence is sufficient to bring the case to trial in a higher-level court. Some states have established these inferior courts of limited jurisdiction to eliminate the expense and inconvenience of traveling to a county or district court. County courts often have exclusive jurisdiction over misdemeanor cases and civil cases involving a limited amount of money. In some states, county courts are also probate courts and juvenile courts. Some states have combined various courts under the umbrella of the county courts. Superior courts are the highest trial courts with general jurisdiction. More than 3,000 such courts exist in the United States. This is where most felony cases enter the system. Some states call them district courts, circuit courts or courts of common plea. These courts may have an appellate department to hear and decide appeals from the municipal courts. Intermediate Appellate Courts These courts were created in several states to reduce the caseloads of state supreme courts. Appealed cases generally go to the intermediate appellate court first.
978-0-495-83114-3, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System, 4e, J. Scott Harr and Kären M. Hess - © Cengage Learning

Figure 2.2

State Judicial System

*Courts of special jurisdiction such as probate, family or juvenile courts, and the so-called inferior courts such as common pleas or municipal courts may be separate courts or part of the trial court of general jurisdiction. **Justices of the peace do not exist in all states. Where they do exist, their jurisdictions vary greatly from state to state. Note: In California all justice courts are municipal courts. Source: American Bar Association. Law and the Courts. Chicago: American Bar Association, 1974, p. 20. Updated information provided by West Publishing Company, St. Paul, MN [Senna and Siegel, 9th ed., 2002, p. 276].

978-0-495-83114-3, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System, 4e, J. Scott Harr and Kären M. Hess - © Cengage Learning

48

Section I A Foundation for Understanding Constitutional Law

State Supreme Courts State supreme courts are the highest courts in a state and are generally called supreme courts, although some states call them courts of appeals. These courts are given their power by the individual state constitutions. They generally oversee the intermediate appellate courts and have very few areas of original jurisdiction. If someone petitions the supreme court to review the decision of an appeals court, this is called a petition for certiorari. A lower court must abide by the decision of a higher court.

petition for certiorari • request that the Supreme Court review the decision of a lower court

The Federal Court System
The federal court system consists of a number of specialized courts, a number of district courts with general jurisdiction, 12 circuit courts of appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court (Figure 2.3).

Supreme Court of the United States

Federal Circuit Court

U.S. Courts of Appeals (11 Circuits plus D.C. Circuit)

Claims Court

Court of International Trade

District Court in Patent Matters

U.S. District Courts with federal and local jurisdiction (Virgin Islands, Guam)

Administrative Quasi-Judicial Agencies (Tax Court, Federal Trade Commission, National Labor Relations Board, etc.)

U.S. District Courts with federal jurisdiction only (92 districts in 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico)

District Appeals from State Courts in 50 states

Figure 2.3 Federal Judicial System
Source: American Bar Association. Law and the Courts. Chicago: American Bar Association, 1974, p. 21. Updated information provided by the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982 and West Publishing Company, St. Paul, MN [Senna and Siegel, 9th ed., 2002, p. 283].

978-0-495-83114-3, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System, 4e, J. Scott Harr and Kären M. Hess - © Cengage Learning

Chapter 2 An Overview of the U.S. Legal System

49

Special U.S. Courts Congress has created several specialized courts with which you will probably never have any dealings. They include the Court of Military Appeals, the Court of Claims, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, the Customs Court and the Tax Court.

U.S. District Courts The district courts are trial courts with general, original federal jurisdiction. They try both civil and criminal cases. In civil cases, however, the plaintiff and defendant must be from different states, and the amount of the lawsuit must be more than $10,000. The federal district courts try a very limited number of criminal cases. Each state has at least one district court. Some large states have four. The total number of district courts is 94 (92 in the states, one in the District of Columbia and one in Puerto Rico) (Figure 2.4).

U.S. Courts of Appeals Like the intermediate appellate courts at the state level, the U.S. Courts of Appeals were created to ease the caseload of the Supreme Court. Each state is assigned to one of 11 districts or circuits. The District of Columbia has its own circuit and court. These courts have jurisdiction over final decisions of federal district courts. They are the courts of last resort in most federal cases. The U.S. Supreme Court The U.S. Supreme Court is the ultimate court of appeal. Its chief function is as an appellate court. It receives petitions for certiorari from over 6,000 cases a year but usually accepts fewer than 10 percent for review. More than a third of the cases received are from state supreme courts. The Supreme Court is restricted by act of Congress to hear only certain types of appeals

Figure 2.4

Map of U.S. Districts

978-0-495-83114-3, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System, 4e, J. Scott Harr and Kären M. Hess - © Cengage Learning

50

Section I A Foundation for Understanding Constitutional Law

from federal appeals courts and state supreme courts. Basically, the cases must involve a federal or state statute alleged to be unconstitutional. There is no right to have a case heard by the Supreme Court. It hears only cases of extreme national importance to set important policy. The Supreme Court has dealt with such controversial issues as abortion, busing and school prayer. Bills have been introduced in Congress to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on such “moral” issues, leaving it up to the individual states. The Supreme Court is the only court empowered to handle lawsuits between two states. Because of its extreme importance in shaping the country’s laws, the next chapter is devoted to the Supreme Court.

Officers of the Court
The legal system does not consist simply of buildings. It is about people. It is there to serve people and does so through those who play important and varied roles in the system. Those whose jobs are to carry out the administration of law are called officers of the court. a The officers of the court are judges, lawyers, clerks of court, sheriffs, marshals and bailiffs.

Judges, sometimes called justices or magistrates, are elected in some states and appointed in others. Judges preside over trials and hearings and render decisions. They also oversee the selection of juries and instruct them during jury cases. Lawyers represent one side or the other. In a civil case, the plaintiff’s lawyer represents the party bringing suit. In a criminal case, the prosecutor represents the state. The lawyer representing the accused or answering party is the defense attorney. The lawyers prepare and present their clients’ cases to a judge and sometimes to a jury. Clerks of court schedule cases, officially record all business conducted by the court, and receive and file all official documents related to a case, for example, summons and complaints. Sheriffs and marshals serve summons and other court documents and enforce court orders. Sheriffs function at the state level and marshals at the federal level. Bailiffs are responsible for keeping the courtroom proceedings orderly and dignified and for protecting everyone in the courtroom.

An Adversarial Judicial System
After a person is charged with an offense, civil or criminal, sides are drawn— accuser v. accused. The accusing side has the burden of proof to establish guilt. The defendant is presumed innocent until this has been accomplished. It is expected that each side will assert their positions vehemently, not only so that their situation will be resolved but also so that truth will prevail. This is accomplished by having each side provide the strongest legal response possible, a concept difficult to appreciate by those who lack understanding of the law. For example, a question frequently asked of defense lawyers is: “How can you defend someone accused of such a horrible crime?” The answer is that even the accused has a right to legal representation as aggressive as the law allows. It could be a matter of life and death.

978-0-495-83114-3, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System, 4e, J. Scott Harr and Kären M. Hess - © Cengage Learning

Chapter 2 An Overview of the U.S. Legal System

51

The legal system established in the United States is termed an adversarial judicial system because only in an actual conflict will a judicial body hear the case. Theoretically, courts will not entertain “what if” questions. Actual people must have reached an impasse and require a binding decision by a court. In practice, however, the Court has frequently relaxed this barrier, finding exceptions to it and applying it inconsistently. The abortion case Roe v. Wade (1973), for example, was decided long after the petitioner’s pregnancy had terminated and the controversy ended. As designed, however, the system places one side against the other, whether the government against a private party or individual against individual. Although the system encourages problems to be settled out of court, the system is prepared to be accessed when necessary. The overall legal system is organized to provide parties to a case the most accessible tribunal. For example, a matter involving a local building-code dispute is best taken up by a municipal board of adjustments and appeals or the city council. The violation of a state statute, on the other hand, is best dealt with by a state court. All levels of jurisdiction have avenues of appeals so that matters may be heard by another body of decision makers. This system provides a degree of checks and balances and removes the element of personal involvement sometimes present at the local level.

adversarial judicial system • a legal system such as that used in the United States, which places one party against another to resolve a legal issue, stipulating that only in an actual conflict will a judicial body hear the case

Doctrines Governing What Cases Will Be Heard a Three important doctrines govern whether a case will be heard by the court: standing, mootness and ripeness. standing • having an actual interest in the matter of dispute amicus brief • a “friend of the court” brief submitted by a person not a party to the action but interested in the outcome

Standing To bring a case or to argue a legal issue in court, one must have standing, meaning an actual interest in the matter of dispute. It is not permissible for just anyone to bring a legal action unless they are actually a party to the matter intended to be adjudicated. Someone must have been legally wronged or accused of the wrongdoing to be involved in a legal case. People who are not a party to the action may still have an interest and are permitted to submit amicus (“friends of the court”) briefs arguing their perspective. However, these are only considered at the pleasure of the court and as merely thoughts of a nonparty.

Mootness exists when the issues that gave rise to a case have either been resolved or have otherwise disappeared so that a court decision would have no practical effect. An example of a case dismissed for mootness is one in which a group of students and their parents filed suit challenging the inclusion of two prayers and a hymn during a 1991 public high school graduation ceremony as unconstitutional. Although the federal district court rejected the challenge, the circuit court of appeals declared the practice unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. However, the Supreme Court remanded the case, instructing the court of appeals to dismiss it as moot because the students who filed the suit had already graduated. A court can use the mootness doctrine to avoid considering controversial constitutional issues. mootness • exists when the issues that gave rise to a case have either been resolved or have otherwise disappeared

978-0-495-83114-3, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System, 4e, J. Scott Harr and Kären M. Hess - © Cengage Learning

52

Section I A Foundation for Understanding Constitutional Law

ripeness doctrine • invoked when a case comes to court too soon, preventing the court from getting prematurely involved in a case that may eventually resolve through other means

Ripeness The ripeness doctrine is invoked when a case comes to court too soon. This doctrine prevents the court from getting prematurely involved in a case that may eventually be resolved through other means.

The Constitution and Criminal Justice in the United States: The Big Picture
This chapter has focused on the legal system and U.S. courts because this is where constitutional issues are decided. However, the courts are only one component of the American system of justice both at the adult and juvenile levels. The Constitution also directly affects what happens before a case comes to court and after the court renders a decision. a The criminal justice system consists of law enforcement, courts and corrections.

Law enforcement officers, as the gatekeepers of the criminal justice system, must be thoroughly versed in the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee of the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The Constitution applies to the police officer who wants to search the interior of a car stopped for a traffic violation as well as to searches conducted within the walls of a prison by a correctional officer. Furthermore, these same constitutional constraints apply to nonsworn police, community service officers and animal control personnel, fire and building inspectors, community corrections workers (probation and parole officers), food and drug inspectors and postal inspectors. The number of jobs in the governmental system is huge, and all those working in them are regulated by the Constitution. Finally, those constraints apply to all who work within the juvenile justice system as well.

The Courts, Corrections and Criminal Sanctions
The courts determine what criminal sanctions will be imposed on those who commit crimes. Cole and Smith (2007, p. 384) note: “Criminal sanctions in the United States have four goals: retribution (deserved punishment), deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. Ultimately, all criminal punishment is aimed at maintaining the social order, but the justifications for sentencing speak to the American values of justice and fairness.” Clear et al. (2006, p. 6) explain: “Punishing people who break society’s rules is an unfortunate but necessary part of social life. From the earliest accounts of humankind, punishment has been used as one means of social control, or compelling people to behave according to the norms and rules of society.” The manner by which violators have been held accountable has varied over time, and challenges to the Eighth Amendment (forbidding “cruel and unusual punishments”) will likely have as many, if not more, challenges in the future as it has in the past, as discussed in detail in Chapter 13.

The Juvenile Justice System
More than 100 years ago, the juvenile justice system was born by the establishment of a separate juvenile court (the Juvenile Court Act of 1899 in Illinois). Reformers believed that the punitive focus of the adult system was not in the “best interest of the child.” They sought to establish a court whose purpose was to rehabilitate youthful offenders rather than to punish them. Initially youths coming
978-0-495-83114-3, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System, 4e, J. Scott Harr and Kären M. Hess - © Cengage Learning

Chapter 2 An Overview of the U.S. Legal System

53

before the juvenile court had no due process rights whatsoever. But as the court evolved, these rights were instituted, as discussed later in the text. And over time, a juvenile justice system developed to parallel the adult (criminal) justice system. a The juvenile justice system has the same three components as the criminal justice system: law enforcement, courts and corrections.

The law enforcement component is directly affected by the establishment of status offenses, behavior prohibited by law simply because the person engaging in the behavior is a minor (usually younger than 18). Examples include smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, running away from home and truancy. Corrections is affected because most states have enacted legislation prohibiting housing juveniles in adult facilities. Beginning in 1980, a trend emerged to “get tough” on juvenile offenders, especially those committing more serious crime: “Legislatures passed laws to crack down on juvenile crime, reflecting a widespread reconsideration of juvenile philosophy, jurisdiction, and authority and a more punitive approach to juvenile delinquency” (Burfeind and Bartusch, 2006, p. 45). Such legislative changes include provisions allowing juveniles to be tried in adult courts, increased sentencing options by juvenile courts and a reduction in juvenile court confidentiality: “These initiatives for punishment and accountability have replaced the rehabilitative ideal . . . of the original juvenile court” (ibid). The effectiveness of this approach is yet to be documented.

status offenses • offenses deemed to be illegal when committed by juveniles because of their age, which are not unlawful for adults, such as smoking, drinking and curfew

The Criminal Justice and Juvenile Justice Systems Compared a The most important similarity between the criminal justice and the juvenile justice systems is that all constitutional rights apply. The most important difference is that the focus of the criminal justice system is to punish and to deter, whereas the focus of the juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate.

Law Enforcement Many police departments have a separate juvenile division or at least a few juvenile officers. Many other departments have no such specialists, and all officers are responsible for both juvenile and adult offenders. The terminology usually differs, however. Juveniles are taken into custody; adults are arrested. Juveniles are accused of delinquent acts; adults are accused of crimes. Juveniles are directed to appear in court by a petition; adults are directed to appear in court by an information or indictment. Juveniles and adults may be kept in custody before appearing in court to protect the public or to assure their court appearance. In the case of juveniles, this is called detention; adults are jailed. Adults usually have a right to bail; in most states juveniles do not.

Courts Juvenile court proceedings are less formal and may be private; adult proceedings are more formal and public. Juvenile identifying information is usually not released to the press; adult information is released. Juveniles have no right to a jury trial, but adults do. Both systems require proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the right to be represented by an attorney, and both allow appeals to a higher court. The initial appearance before a juvenile judge is called a conference; before a criminal judge it is called a preliminary hearing. In juvenile court, the adjudication hearing parallels the adult trial. Juvenile court proceedings are quasi-civil and may be confidential; criminal court proceedings are open.
978-0-495-83114-3, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System, 4e, J. Scott Harr and Kären M. Hess - © Cengage Learning

54

Section I A Foundation for Understanding Constitutional Law

During a juvenile hearing, a youth may be adjudicated delinquent; in the adult court, the defendant is declared a criminal. In either court, if a guilty decision is rendered, a hearing to determine the outcome is held. In juvenile court, this is the dispositional hearing; in adult court, it is the sentencing hearing. In either system, the disposition or sentence cannot be cruel or unusual. Although controversy has always surrounded the death penalty, the controversy increases as to whether it should be applied to juveniles.

Corrections As noted, juvenile and adult correctional facilities are to be separated. Juveniles released from custody receive aftercare; adults receive parole or probation.

The Changing Face of American Criminal Justice and Constitutional Law
This brief overview of the criminal and juvenile justice systems has been provided to stress the importance of the Constitution at every juncture within these systems. Whatever the role of government agents, their power is limited by the constraints of the Constitution. This should never be viewed as a hindrance or something negative. Rather, this provides the government, and those it serves, with clear guidelines that maintain the purpose the framers of the Constitution had in mind more than two centuries ago. This system of reserved power benefits all concerned. The Constitution is not just about history and theory. It applies to every criminal-justice practitioner. Each is expected to understand constitutional rights and to apply them in any number of situations, including many that have not previously arisen. In fact, U.S. constitutional law is being challenged in myriad unprecedented ways, as technology and travel make crossing international borders an everyday event for millions around the world. Returning to a concept introduced earlier—that American law is living and ever evolving—this chapter concludes with a look at how this blurring of jurisdictional boundaries has an impact on constitutional law.

American Criminal Justice beyond Our Borders
As the entire world continues to become closer for reasons that include electronic communication, the Internet and ease of travel, people find themselves increasingly interested in laws different from their own. The study of comparative law is just that, comparing and contrasting laws to expand understanding of law and legal theory. It is fascinating to delve into the historical development of legal systems and compare them with ours, finding some are quite similar and some vastly different. Even more relevant to the study of the American Constitution and criminal justice system is the impact of our Constitution and the laws of other nations when Americans are called on to provide services in foreign lands: “In a shrinking world with a global economy, terrorism, electronic communications, and jet aircraft, much crime is transnational, giving rise to a host of international criminal law enforcement tasks. American law enforcement is being ‘exported’ in response to increased international terrorism, drug trafficking, smuggling of illegal immigrants, violations of U.S. securities laws, and money laundering, as well as the potential theft of nuclear material” (Cole and Smith, 2007, p. 156).

comparative law • comparing and contrasting laws to expand understanding of law and legal theory

978-0-495-83114-3, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System, 4e, J. Scott Harr and Kären M. Hess - © Cengage Learning

Chapter 2 An Overview of the U.S. Legal System

55

Because the Constitution serves as the primary roadmap for American law enforcement, primarily involving American citizens, entirely different rules, regulations, policies and procedures are taken into account when foreign governments are involved. It is not as simple as having U.S. law enforcement officials conduct their official duties the same elsewhere as they do at home. Without more powers, any foreign official may be restricted to lawfully gathering data with no more authority than any other citizen or visitor would have. Cooperative agencies such as the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) serve as clearing houses but cannot summarily grant expanded police powers. The U.S. National Bureau of Interpol, the Interpol unit in the United States, operates in Washington, D.C. and directly involves multiple federal agencies and cooperates with foreign police entities, as their mission statement explains: “The U.S. National Central Bureau (USNCB) was authorized by statute (22 U.S.C. 263a) and operates within the guidelines prescribed by the Department of Justice, in conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security. The mission of the U.S. National Central Bureau is to facilitate international law enforcement cooperation as the United States representative with the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), on behalf of the Attorney General.” The authority by which U.S. law enforcement may act in any official capacity in a foreign country is the result of compacts, treaties or other formal arrangements with those nations. Times of war bring additional rules regulating what is and is not permissible. Recently, the complexities of incorporating such laws as promulgated by the Geneva Convention and Uniform Code of Military Justice have been scrutinized regarding such issues as the treatment of military prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The increased practice of combining military and private security during wartime has expanded the complexities of rules that apply during global conflict. Because the Constitution is considered the basis of U.S. law and that which is considered just, those pursuing further studies of comparative, military and law enforcement on foreign soil are best served by developing an initial understanding of the U.S. Constitution. As with studying other legal theories, you are encouraged to explore comparative and international law as opportunities present themselves. Chapter 4 provides means by which you can pursue your own interest in these areas.

Summary
In the United States, two prominent theories about the underlying purpose of law exist: consensus theory and conflict theory. The basic purpose of the U.S. legal system is to ensure fairness in balancing individual and societal rights and needs, while preventing excessive government power. This balance between individual and societal rights and needs is represented by the scales of justice. Our legal system has its roots in the common law of England, the early English judge-made law based on custom and tradition and followed throughout the country. In American law, common law is synonymous with case law. Inherent in the common law is the principle of stare decisis. Stare decisis requires that precedents set in one case be followed in all cases having similar circumstances, thus assuring consistency in the
978-0-495-83114-3, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System, 4e, J. Scott Harr and Kären M. Hess - © Cengage Learning

56

Section I A Foundation for Understanding Constitutional Law

law. The Constitution ensures individual rights by limiting government power. And although the law, in fairness, must be consistent, it is also flexible. American law is considered a living law because it can change along with society. In addition to common law, the legal system also relies upon case law, statutory law—that is, law passed by legislature or governing bodies—and constitutional law. The U.S. legal system categorizes offenses into two specific areas: civil and criminal. Civil laws deal with personal matters and wrongs against individuals—called torts. Criminal laws deal with wrongs against society—called crimes. An act may be both a tort and a crime. When civil or criminal laws are broken, the courts’ two main functions are to settle controversies between parties and to decide the rules of law that apply in specific cases. The U.S. legal system is made up of a number of necessary components. It is basically a two-tiered system consisting of state and federal courts. Each tier includes specific levels of courts. The officers of the court are judges, lawyers, clerks of court, sheriffs, marshals and bailiffs. Three important doctrines govern whether a case will be heard by the court: standing, mootness and ripeness. The Constitution affects not only our legal system but also both our criminal and juvenile justice systems. Both systems have three components: law enforcement, courts and corrections. The most important similarity between the criminal and the juvenile justice systems is that all constitutional rights apply. The most important difference is that the focus of the criminal justice system is to punish and to deter, whereas the focus of the juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate.

Discussion Questions
1. Could a country such as the United States function without a federal constitution? Would it be possible for each state to merely abide by its own constitution? 2. Why shouldn’t the Constitution include an overall criminal code specifying crimes and punishments that could apply throughout the United States? 3. Why is society considered the victim of a crime rather than the individual victimized? 4. Why must the legal system provide an appeal procedure? 5. Can you develop an argument against stare decisis? 6. Why shouldn’t courts be permitted to argue “what if” questions? 7. Which underlying theory about the purpose of law do you feel makes most sense—consensus or conflict theory? 8. If the basic purpose of the U.S. legal system is to ensure fairness in balancing individual and societal rights and needs, is that end best served by an adversarial system in which the person with the best lawyer often comes out on top? Does this system of justice provide equal access to people of different socioeconomic classes? 9. Discuss whether you consider U.S. law a “living law.” 10. Should people have a right to a defense attorney? a InfoTrac College Edition Assignments a a

Use InfoTrac College Edition to assist you in answering the Discussion Questions when appropriate. Search courts and list the numerous types of courts in this country. Select one type of court to look at in depth. Outline the main characteristics of that court. Use one of the following key words/phrases to locate an article related to this chapter to read and outline: amicus briefs, common law, mootness, scales of justice, stare decisis, U.S. legal system.

Internet Assignments a a

a

Use http://www.findlaw.com to find one case discussed in this chapter. Outline the key points. Research and outline information on one of the following terms (be sure the material relates to chapter content): amicus briefs, case law, common law, conflict theory, consensus theory, legal standing, mootness, petition for certiorari, procedural law, ripeness doctrine, social contract, stare decisis, status offenses, statutory law, substantive law, torts. Using the key term jurisdiction, find the article “Law about Jurisdiction: An Overview” and outline the main points.

978-0-495-83114-3, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System, 4e, J. Scott Harr and Kären M. Hess - © Cengage Learning

Chapter 2 An Overview of the U.S. Legal System

57

Companion Web Site a Go to the Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System 3e Web site at http://cj.wadsworth.com/ hessharr_constlaw3e for Case Studies and Study Guide exercises.

“Trends in Juvenile Justice and Delinquency.” Criminal Justice Research Reports, July/August 2003, pp. 89–90. Walker, Samuel; Spohn, Cassia; and DeLone, Miriam. The Color of Justice: Race, Ethnicity, and Crime in America, 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 2004.

References
Burfeind, James W. and Bartusch, Dawn Jeglum. Juvenile Delinquency An Integrated Approach. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2006. Clear, Todd R.; Cole, George F.; and Reisigm, Michael D. American Corrections, 7th ed, Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth Publishing, 2006. Cole, George F. and Smith, Christopher E. The American System of Criminal Justice, 11th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth Publishing, 2007.

Additional Resources
Whitman, James Q. Harsh Justice: Criminal Punishment and the Widening Divide between America and Europe. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Silverman, Ira J. and Vega, Manuel. Corrections, A Comprehensive View. New York: West Publishing, 1996.

Cases Cited
Moore v. City of Albany, 98 N.Y. 396, 410 (1885). Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

978-0-495-83114-3, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System, 4e, J. Scott Harr and Kären M. Hess - © Cengage Learning

References: Burfeind, James W. and Bartusch, Dawn Jeglum. Juvenile Delinquency An Integrated Approach. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2006. Clear, Todd R.; Cole, George F.; and Reisigm, Michael D. American Corrections, 7th ed, Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth Publishing, 2006. Cole, George F. and Smith, Christopher E. The American System of Criminal Justice, 11th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth Publishing, 2007. Additional Resources Whitman, James Q. Harsh Justice: Criminal Punishment and the Widening Divide between America and Europe. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Silverman, Ira J. and Vega, Manuel. Corrections, A Comprehensive View. New York: West Publishing, 1996. Cases Cited Moore v. City of Albany, 98 N.Y. 396, 410 (1885). Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). 978-0-495-83114-3, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System, 4e, J. Scott Harr and Kären M. Hess - © Cengage Learning