Judges and Justice in the States

Power Point Slides

 

            The president, the top leaders in Congress, and the members of the U.S. Supreme Court are always in the media spotlight.  As a result, the average citizen has at least a superficial acquaintance with major national officials.  The same could be said, on a somewhat smaller scale, about the state governor and a few key state legislators. Yet ask the average person about his state's judicial system and you will discover how short a conversation can be.  Few people are aware of the great influence that state and local judges have in shaping community and state affairs.  And few people are aware that state judges handle far more of the nation's criminal and civil cases than federal judges do.

 

            Although we often hear about new state laws, we do not realize that the interpretation of law is what often creates public policy, rather than the law itself.  Interpretation is the role played by the state judiciary.  Judges, however, are not only interpreters; they are also the mediators who resolve thousands of legal disputes between individuals.  Each week their calendars are filled with criminal, commercial, divorce,and adoption cases that directly affect peoples' lives.

 

            While the judicial system more than any other governmental institution is steeped in American tradition, a major judicial reform movement is underway, stressing structural and management improvements.  In general, reform of the judicial system is a strongly debated subject that ranges from concern over the access of the poor to equal justice to the need for more efficient trial procedures.

 

            There is also a great debate over how judges should be selected: some wanting gubernatorial appointment, others election by the public, and still others the hybrid Missourisystem.  Most reformers propose appointment or the Missourihybrid, on the grounds that electing judges is contradictory to the "non‑political aura" that the judiciary tries to maintain.  Scholars have found little difference between the kinds of decisions made by elected or appointed judges, but the personal traits of judges may be affected by the selection method.

 

            Trying to take politics out of the judicial process, however, is an impossible task.  As the text points out, judges make policy, and that theme should be developed clearly in the instructor's lectures.

 

 

I.          LEARNING OBJECTIVES

 

1.         Define writs of habeas corpus, new judicial federalism, and tort law.

2.         Identify minor courts and their jurisdictions.

3.         Indicate the role of trial courts of general jurisdiction.

4.         Explain the role of appellate courts in upholding both state and federal law.

5.         Distinguish state courts from federal courts.

6.         Identify and describe four methods used to select judges.

7.         Compare the appointive versus the elective system for the selection of judges.

8.         Discuss how judges are judged.

9.         Examine reforms for improving the administration of justice.

10.       Define the role of the jury in the justice system.

11.       Describe the role of prosecutors in filing formal charges.

12.       Define assigned counsel, pro bono work, and public defender.

13.       Explain the crime victim movement and the victim's bill of rights.

14.       Justify the process of plea bargaining.

15.       Discuss the grounds for and purposes of judicial sentencing.

16.       Analyze the problem of deciding whom to imprison and for how long.

17.       Analyze how our justice system is in crisis.