And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time. And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: Recently, I was at the Alhambra in Granada, the palace and fort of the Moorish rulers of Spain for hundreds of years until Queen Isabella I and King Ferdinand II expanded their northern and eastern kingdoms and expelled them from Spain in
One of the most important ways in which police are held accountable for the manner in which they perform their duties is through the courts. Without force or monetary inducements, courts are weak institutions, because they are denied the most efficacious means of ensuring that their decisions are complied with and enforced.
The lack of formal institutional powers has led some observers to conclude that courts are the least-effective agents of government. However, such arguments ignore what Do judges make law surely the most significant powers of courts—their institutional legitimacy.
An institution is legitimate when it is perceived as having the right or the authority to make decisions and when its decisions are viewed as worthy of respect or obedience. Judicial legitimacy derives from the belief that judges are impartial and that their decisions are grounded in law, not ideology and politics.
Often in sharp contrast to other political institutions such as legislaturescourts are respected—indeed often revered—because their decisions are viewed as being principled rather than motivated by self-interest or partisanship.
To the extent that courts are perceived as legitimate by their constituentstheir decisions—even their unpopular ones—are respected, acquiesced to, and accepted.
The justices of the U. Justices have asserted that frequent reversals of existing precedents undermine the legitimacy of the judiciary. Others have argued that some issues are simply too politically sensitive for courts to intervene in e. If courts become embroiled in ordinary political disputes and are seen as just another political actor trying to advance its ideology, interests, and preferences, then the legitimacy of the institution can be gravely damaged.
Some have argued that just this kind of damage was done when the U. Supreme Court intervened in the presidential election and, ultimately, determined the winner. In general, judges are mindful of threats to the legitimacy of the courts and are unwilling to put it at risk in order to prevail in any particular political or legal controversy.
Courts are not naturally and universally endowed with legitimacy; rather, a sense of legitimacy is accrued and built over time. Throughout the world, the decisions of courts have often been ignored or violently opposed. In some countries, unpopular rulings have resulted in riots Bulgaria ; court buildings have been attacked and burned Pakistan ; judges have been intimidated and removed from office Zimbabweassassinated Ugandaor reassigned to courts in the hinterland Japan ; courts have been stripped of their jurisdiction United States ; and, in the most extreme cases, judicial institutions have been suspended United States or abolished Russia.
Functions of courts Keeping the peace The primary function of any court system—to help keep domestic peace—is so obvious that it is rarely considered or mentioned. If no agency were empowered to decide private disputes impartially and authoritatively, people would have to settle their disputes by themselves, with power rather than legitimate authority likely being the basis of such decisions.
Such a system might easily degenerate into anarchy. Not even a primitive society could survive under such conditions.
Deciding disputes In the course of helping to keep the peace, courts are called upon to decide controversies. If, in a criminal case, the defendant one charged with a crime denies committing the acts charged against him, the court must choose between his version of the facts and that presented by the prosecution.
The issues presented to, and decided by, the court may be either factual, legal, or both. Courts do not, however, spend all their time resolving disputes between opposing parties.
Many cases brought before the courts are not contested e. Moreover, the mere existence of a court may render the frequent exercise of its powers unnecessary. The fact that courts operate by known rules and with reasonably predictable results leads many of those who might otherwise engage in legal action to reach a compromise, because people are typically unwilling to incur the expense of going to court if they believe that there is a good chance that they will lose.
Most people arrested and charged with a crime plead guilty. If they do so with full understanding and without any coercion, the judge generally accepts their admission of guilt. The sole question for the court is to decide whether the defendant should go to jail, pay a fine, pay restitution to the victim, or be subjected to other corrective treatment the judgment may entail more than one of these punishments.
In civil-law countries, some judicial inquiry into the question of guilt or innocence is typically required even after a confession, but the inquiry is generally brief and tends to be perfunctory.
The main problem to be resolved is the sentence that should be imposed. The vast majority of civil cases are also uncontested or, at least, are settled prior to trial.
In some instances, serious negotiations begin only after a lawsuit has been filed. Many suits are settled by the parties themselves, without the intervention of the court. Because courts are usually under strong caseload pressures, they encourage such settlements.
Consequently, in many Western systems, only a small fraction of civil cases are actually tried. Indeed, in many countries a notable trend of the late 20th and early 21st century has been the decreased reliance upon trials to settle disputes.
The decline in court usage reflects several legal and social trends, most notably the increased desire of the parties to seek immediate relief and the increased options in the systems available to do just that. In the United States, for example, most divorce cases are uncontested, both parties usually being eager to terminate the marriage and often agreeing on related questions concerning support and the custody of children.
All the court does in such cases is review what the parties have agreed upon and give the agreement official approval and the legitimacy of law. In other instances, disputes are settled through various methods of alternative dispute resolution, such as arbitrationin which the parties agree that the decision of the arbitration or arbitration panel or tribunal will carry the full, binding force of law.Free coursework on Judges Do Not Make Law from regardbouddhiste.com, the UK essays company for essay, dissertation and coursework writing.
Richard Paey is a Florida man who was incarcerated in for drug trafficking. There was no evidence he ever distributed or intended to sell any pills, but drug laws in many states, including Florida, allow officials to prosecute for trafficking based solely on the quantity an individual possesses.
What Judges and Hearing Officers Do.
Judges and hearing officers apply the law by overseeing the legal process in courts. They also conduct pretrial hearings, resolve administrative disputes, facilitate negotiations between opposing parties, and issue legal decisions.
Judges in Street Clothes provides an excellent overview of the ethical issues facing judges outside the courtroom.
The author provides interesting case examples, such as Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis who served as the first Commissioner of Baseball while also serving as a judge.
While judges are not free to make law as legislators, based on their personal views of the dictates of justice, justice finds its way into the calculus that sees the general development of legal rules and principles over time. Judges at both the state and federal levels are expected to maintain independence and impartiality so they can render objective judgments.
Most states elect judges by popular vote and also let the public vote on whether a judge should keep her position for another term once her current term has ended.