Will It Work in Our Present Legal System Why or Why Not

Offenders who have been sentenced to imprisonment usually spend their time in a local or state jail. Offenders sentenced to less than 1 year generally go to prison; Those who have been sentenced to more than 1 year go to prison. Persons admitted to the federal system or to a state penitentiary system may be detained in prisons at varying degrees of detention or in a municipal correctional facility. Over the years, I`ve spent so much time and energy focusing solely on the fact that a majority of people in our state civil and family courts have no legal recourse that I honestly hadn`t given much thought to what would happen if they suddenly did. And there I found the previous scenario frightening. The cost of traditional legal services is rising, access to legal services is decreasing, the growth rate of law firms is stable, and lawyers serving ordinary people are struggling to make a living. There is ample evidence that the legal profession is divided into two segments, one serving individuals (PeopleLaw) and the other serving businesses (organizational clients). These two segments have very different economic drivers and are developing very differently. Since the mid-1970s, the people`s law sector has entered a period of decline, characterized by fewer paying clients and declining lawyers` incomes. Recent government statistics show that the people`s rights sector declined by nearly $7 billion (10.1%) between 2007 and 2012. During this period, the number of unrepresented litigants in state courts continued to increase.

The Organizational Clients division is also under economic stress. The biggest challenge is the increasing complexity of a highly regulated and interconnected economy. However, unlike medical care and higher education, a growing proportion of U.S. consumers are choosing to forego legal services rather than pay a higher price. The legal profession is at a turning point. (11) To promulgate laws to which man cannot and will not obey serves to despise all law. In a republic, it is very important that the people respect the laws, because if we throw them to the wind, what will happen to a civilian government? It is important to note that none of these documents represent the views of IAALS. IAALS is apolitical and its work is research rather than opinion-building.

IAALS` role in these articles is simply to be the curator of the larger conversation. IAALS contributions are upcoming reports on surveys, focus groups and interviews we conducted to better understand the views of the public and lawyers. And as I prepare to hand over the keys to IAALS` powerful engine room to my successor, I also offer my own thoughts here. When the grand jury system is used, the grand jury can also investigate criminal activity in general and issue charges called grand jury originals that initiate criminal prosecutions. These investigations and charges are often used in drug and conspiracy cases involving complex organizations. Following these charges, law enforcement agencies are attempting to arrest and apprehend the suspects named in the indictment. Lawyers have also dominated congressional and state laws. As a result, lawyers controlled the legal system. Many issues of great public importance ended up before the courts.

Lawyers made laws, applied laws, and interpreted laws. And at the heart of any solution, we need to focus on the people who use the system. We need to integrate their input into solutions, measure their satisfaction, ask them for help. The era of the protectorate of lawyers/judges must end – graciously or less with dignity. To build public trust, we need to create a truly trustworthy system. And to do that, I believe we need to put ordinary people at the heart of the system, not lawyers and judges. Access to justice means access to legal and judicial services that are understandable, accessible and affordable – for all. If the defendant pleads not guilty or not guilty to mental illness, a date is set for trial. A person charged with a serious crime is guaranteed a jury trial. However, the defendant may request a trial in which the judge, rather than a jury, serves as the investigator of the facts.

In both cases, the prosecution and defence present evidence by questioning witnesses while the judge decides on points of law. The trial ends with an acquittal or conviction on the basis of the original charges or less serious offences. The words of Martin Luther King of Birmingham prison remind us that there is a difference between law and justice. The law, while applied uniformly, does not in itself guarantee a fair outcome. The rule of law must promote stability, but a society based on the rule of law must also remain vigilant so that the rule of law also serves the interests of justice. As this quote shows, the continued strength of the rule of law sometimes depends on the willingness of people willing to risk punishment for justice. The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable outcomes from the legal system; this is what Justice Wood implies when she says that “laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable outcomes mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them the same. If similar actions do not lead to similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law as a guideline for their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist. Upon arrest, it is decided either to refer the case to the judicial system or to divert the case out of the system, often to other programs.

Examples of alternative programs include substance abuse treatment, individual or group counselling, or referrals to educational and recreational programs. Most systems accept that criminal responsibility is not attributable to specific groups of people: very young children or people with serious mental illness. The systems also recognize a number of mitigating circumstances such as self-defence or provocation. At the Legal Services Corporation`s (LSC) annual technology innovation conference held last week, the dark state of the legal system was at the center of discussions. This is not particularly surprising given the unique perspective of the legal aid community – a community that, by its very existence, draws attention to the inaccessibility that permeates our justice system. For too long, those involved in the justice system have had to pay for their own surveillance. Pre-trial detainees – who have not yet completed their court appearance – are burdened by the cost of pre-trial supervision, in addition to the need to be supervised and comply with the onerous and complex rules that come with surveillance. They are charged with pre-trial surveillance, even if they cannot afford it, and are threatened with imprisonment if they do not pay. Private e-carceration, euphemistically known as “electronic surveillance,” involves a private company acting on court orders attaching one or more surveillance devices to a person`s ankle that records their every move.

Private companies charge the wearer a daily fee for each day the person is required to wear the device. Forcing people to pay excessive fees for their own oversight of the justice system, regardless of their creditworthiness, means that people are pushed into debt and even threatened with jail if they don`t pay. Create your legal strategy and do important work with authoritative primary law, analysis, advice, court records and validation tools. Private law defines who is considered to have legal capacity and deals with their legal capacity (for the protection of the very young or mentally ill). These natural persons may create other “artificial” legal entities such as associations, foundations and companies. Pro bono aid undoubtedly helps some people, but it is never and never will be an evolutionary solution to the problems we face. In our form of government, each state and federal government has its own criminal justice system. All systems must respect the rights of the individual, which are set out in the judicial interpretation of the United States.

Constitution and jurisprudence. In fact, while lawyers and judges have been confronted with conclusions about low public trust in the legal system, over time they have developed solutions such as more civic education, more pro bono services from lawyers, and more court contact with their communities. All these solutions are justified and I do not want to ignore them. But they assume that the system itself is in good shape – it is only perceptions of the system that need to be fixed. I call this the “to know ourselves is to love us” approach. But the recent work of IAALS, along with that of its colleagues, including the National Center for State Courts, brings us back to a much deeper reality: people don`t trust the system because the system isn`t trustworthy. One of the most complex concepts in U.S. jurisprudence is the extent to which the various sources of law in state and federal systems are interrelated. There is a complex set of rules that define relative priority between different sources of law and between state and federal systems.