The Constrained Court Model Created By Gerald N. Rosenberg

In 1788, the ratification of the United States Constitution sought to establish the fundamental aspects of the nation’s government, laws, and protections of its citizens’ unalienable rights. Robert G. McCloskey’s The American Supreme Court (2016) explains that, during this period, the prospects of the Supreme Court were essentially unknown. As time progressed, however, the Court began strengthening its legitimacy with its decisions in major landmark court cases which, in turn, established its crucial role in shaping the judicial interests and values of the nation. As such, McCloskey (2016) traces the country’s judicial history by highlighting the Court’s great transitional periods regarding state rights, nation rights, property rights, and slavery. By the start of the 20th century, however, discrepancies began to emerge with the rise of

The second element of the ruling - the effect it had on African-American supporters and the encouragement if afforded - had a greater impact. Paterson and Willoughby say the 'psychological need for integration6’ had been recognised, what Patterson calls ‘the symbolic value of Brown’7. All three historians agree that African-Americans needed some success to motivate the continued struggle, and this Brown provided. Patterson says activists were ‘extraordinarily heartened by Brown’8. Kevern Verney talks of a ‘renewed hope’9 given to African-Americans. They were similarly helped by Browder v. Gayle in 1956, which ruled the bus segregation in Montgomery unconstitutional, and Boyton v. Virginia in 1960, which extended this ruling to waiting rooms and restaurants. According to Willoughby and Paterson, the ‘clear-cut decision’ came ‘in the knick-of time'10 for the protest movement, which might not have succeeded without the ruling by the court. Even here, however, the court was unable to enforce the actions. One observer recalled a ‘bus station ... still rigorously segregated’11, in 1966. These examples show the Supreme Court as advancing the Civil Rights by passing favourable and motivating rulings, but it certainly fell short when it came to enforcing them. Taking everything into account, the Supreme Court was a force for change, but not without fault, in the later 20th century.

Three models portraying our criminal justice system are the Wedding Cake Model, Criminalization Model, and the President’s Commission Model. The Wedding Cake Model “emphasizes that the system handles different kinds of cases differently; it depicts four layers or tiers of cases”. While the Wedding Model offers an accurate typology of cases processed through the system, its primary focus is on the decisions of prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges. There is a glimpse the role of power and status in such decisions, but the factors of race, class, and gender are not explicit. But, this model does not address the lawmaking process and the social inequalities in the economic and political systems in which laws are forged. Now the second model, the Criminalization model explores the role of social class in the criminal justice system. It shows that the system is used to control certain groups of people by criminalizing their behaviors and targeting them for arrest and incarceration. The third model, the President’s Commission Model provides the most famous portrayal of the criminal justice system by summarizing the stages of the system. In comparison, the Wedding Cake Model and the Criminalization Model are similar because they both show the recognition of power and status in the criminal justice system. These two models are the opposite of the President’s Commission Model due to the fact that this model does not show the roles played by race, gender, and social class at the

The Justice system seeks to prevent crimes and to capture those who have committed crimes. But what are the causes of crime, maybe poverty, or greed, or is sometimes caused by the system. Is the risk worth the reward and is reward the worth risking the punishment? Power and influence is threaded deeply into the Criminal Justice System. Are all offenders caught and processed with the same demeanor and given the same punishment? The system needs to be impartial to all offenders regardless of the offender’s social position, job or yearly income. The general punishment for most crimes is incarceration in most states with a difference in duration to adjust per each crime. This is the deterrent against crime. This is what should be keeping

The life of every American citizen, whether they realize it or not, is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems for years to come. John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and as the only lasting Federalist influence in a newly Democratic-Republican

America has been built on inequality and evolving forms of racism for generations. Our criminal justice system is a reflection of the structural racism that has and is permeating our country. The criminal justice system of the United States is not explicitly racist, however there are many internal and unspoken policies that enact a structural racism through policing and the courts, however, our criminal justice system shows more racial disparities than racism. The lenses of two individuals who have in some way experienced the criminal justice system show the internal issues revolving around race, In Nicole Gonzalez Van Cleeve’s work Crook County and Wilbert Rideau’s In the Place of Justice, we see how the structural racism and more so the racial disparities play huge roles in shaping the life outcomes for people of color.

The intersection of racial dynamics with the criminal justice system is one of longstanding duration. In earlier times, courtrooms in many jurisdictions were comprised of all white decision-makers. Today, there is more diversity of leadership in the court system, but race still plays a critical role in many

Few in this country would argue with the fact that the United States criminal justice system possesses discrepancies which adversely affect Blacks in this country. Numerous studies and articles have been composed on the many facets in which discrimination, or at least disparity, is obvious. Even whites are forced to admit that statistics indicate that the Black community is disproportionately affected by the American legal system. Controversy arises when the issue of possible causes of, and also solutions to, these variations are discussed. It’s not just black versus white, it is white versus white, and white versus oriental, whatever the case may be, and it is not justice. If we see patterns then the judges should have the authority to say something. Jury nullifications cannot be overturned regardless of the cause. Exclusionary rule, according to CULS (2010) – Prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of U.S. Constitution; like unreasonable search and seizure (Fourth Amendment).

The historical context in which this book was written surrounds the events that took place during the Civil Rights Movement. There were several influential legal

Many years ago, before courts existed matters was handled in a privately or informally. This often led to violence and unjust treatment of innocent people. During the rise of the Greek City States and the Roman Empire law enforcement became a public affair instead of private. (Siegel, Schmalleger, & Worral, 2011). Along with this movement became formalized courts and other criminal justice institutions. This allowed for law enforcement matters to be handled in a more civilized manner for resolving human conflict.

The judicial branch, in its conception as outlined in Article III of the constitution was designated the “power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases (The White House)”. However, since the ratification of the constitution, much like the other two branches of government, the judicial branch has also experienced an expanded delegation of authority and power. This notion is evidenced in the 1803 decision on the case of Marbury v. Madison where the Supreme Court asserted its power of judicial review by ”blocking last-minute appointments by outgoing President John Adams (Chegg)” by declaring that these actions should not be permitted because the supreme court, under chief justice john Marshall declared them unconstitutional(Cornell). This set forth a very powerful precedent for judicial review, one that continues to play a critical role in political discourse today. Although the evolution of the judiciary commenced following the fallout of the 1803 decision, the courts have delegated to themselves a controversial role as policy-makers in response to societal demands and stresses placed upon the political system specifically during and after the civil rights movement that occurred in the United States during the 20th century. This expanded role into the realm of actual policy making is derived from the belief that the constitution is indeed a living and flexible document that must retain the capability for change. As the

The perception of the Australian criminal justice system’s legitimacy is determined by the actions of three institutions, and the manner in which they address issues of justice within society. For the criminal justice system to be seen with integrity and valued for its role, it is vital that all members of the community see the appropriate rectification of injustices through the police, courts and corrections. However, particular groups within society encounter the illegitimacy and social inequity embedded within these institutions, diminishing the effectiveness to which they fulfill their role. For women in particular, the institutions of the criminal justice system are notably unethical in their treatment of both victims and perpetrators of crime. Despite many reforms and recommendations for change, the criminal justice system ultimately fails in achieving justice for women, with the courts demonstrating the most significant attempt to eliminate social inequality and victimisation.

The Criminal Justice System, a system the British government set up to deal with the treatment of law-breakers, has three main goals to achieve social order, these are, (1) enforcing criminal law, (2) maintaining law and order in the society, and (3) helping victims. This may seem to be a well thought of system, but like any other organisation, there are flaws, and one of the major flaws is discrimination, and the bias that stems from discrimination.

These fluctuations in criminal justice policies are not just in local governing bodies; these changes are an effort to adapt to a new technologically based modern age, and that goal of adaptation radiates to all ends of the earth, thereby having a global reach. As all societies, and populations of people alter and change, and belief systems ebb and flow, the rules and laws that govern such people must change with them. It is imperative that a governing system stay current, for without an ever-changing system of behavioral structure then those societies race faster toward

Victims of crime, particularly those violent in nature, have their rights violated and experience exceedingly high level of trauma and stress (Appendix B, 2015). It is surprising then, that Criminal Justice Systems (CJS) around the world forgo many victims’ rights and provided limited space for them to interact with the system (Sarre, 1999). Rather systems are built around balancing the rights of offenders against the greater safety and need of the community whilst neglecting individual justice needs of the victims (Sarre, 1999). With limited rights and minimal involvement a victim often becomes a disposable utensil to the CJS (Clark, 2010). They are used by the courts to determine the ultimate truth so justice may be served, with no care for the damage that may be caused in the process and then disposed of the case is concluded (Braun, 2014). In 2011-2012 a victimisation survey revealed that 1.2 million Australians were victims of personal crimes, such as assault, robbery and sexual assault (Australian Institution of Criminology, 2013). Of these victims, only half of the crimes were reported to the police (Australian Institution of Criminology, 2013). Such low reporting rates have been contributed in part to this notion of imbalance offender VS victims’ rights (Braun, 2014). Due to the sensitive nature of sexual crimes, the limited available evidence and victim rights, these crimes tend to carry the lowest reporting rates (Braun, 2014). During the latest Australian