Dual Court System
Q1. What is the dual-court system? Why do we have a dual court system?
A. The dual-court system is the result of a general a agreement among the nation's founders about the need for individual states to retain significant legislative authority and judicial autonomy separate from federal control. The reason why we have a dual-court system is, back then; new states joining the union were assured of limited federal intervention into local affairs. The state legislatures were free to create laws, and state court systems were needed to hear cases in which violations of those laws occurred. Today, however, state courts do not hear cases involving alleged violations of federal law, nor do federal courts involve themselves in deciding issues of state law unless there is a conflict between local or state statues and federal constitutional guarantees. When that happens, claimed violations of federal due process guarantees especially those found in the Bill of Rights.
B. Could the drive toward court unification eventually lead to monolithic court system? Would such system be effective?
No, the drive towards court unification could eventually lead to a monolithic court system because the would give the federal court system too much control and besides, state legislative would make the better decision when it comes to the needs and local affairs. This would not be an effective solution because the system is too complex. The state legislature is better fit to make right decision about local affairs.
Q2. Chapter 8 says that 90% of all criminal cases carried beyond the initial stages are finally resolved through plea bargaining. What are some of the problems associated with plea bargaining? Given those problems, do you believe that plea bargaining is an acceptable practice in today's criminal justice system?
A. The problems associated with plea bargaining are entered
pleas
A. The dual-court system is the result of a general a agreement among the nation's founders about the need for individual states to retain significant legislative authority and judicial autonomy separate from federal control. The reason why we have a dual-court system is, back then; new states joining the union were assured of limited federal intervention into local affairs. The state legislatures were free to create laws, and state court systems were needed to hear cases in which violations of those laws occurred. Today, however, state courts do not hear cases involving alleged violations of federal law, nor do federal courts involve themselves in deciding issues of state law unless there is a conflict between local or state statues and federal constitutional guarantees. When that happens, claimed violations of federal due process guarantees especially those found in the Bill of Rights.
B. Could the drive toward court unification eventually lead to monolithic court system? Would such system be effective?
No, the drive towards court unification could eventually lead to a monolithic court system because the would give the federal court system too much control and besides, state legislative would make the better decision when it comes to the needs and local affairs. This would not be an effective solution because the system is too complex. The state legislature is better fit to make right decision about local affairs.
Q2. Chapter 8 says that 90% of all criminal cases carried beyond the initial stages are finally resolved through plea bargaining. What are some of the problems associated with plea bargaining? Given those problems, do you believe that plea bargaining is an acceptable practice in today's criminal justice system?
A. The problems associated with plea bargaining are entered
pleas