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 may be choose for the punishment likely to be associated with them rather than for their accuracy in describing the criminal offense in which the defendant was involved. For instance, a charge of indecent liberties, for example, in which the defendant is accused of sexual

misconduct may be pleaded out as assault. Such a plea, which takes advantage of the fact those indecent liberties, can be thought of as a form of sexual assault, would effectively disguise the true nature of the offense. Law and order advocates, who generally favor harsh punishment and long jail terms, claim that plea bargaining results in unjustifiably light sentences. As a consequence, prosecutors who regularly engage in the practice rarely advertise it. Often unrealized is the fact that plea bargaining can be a powerful prosecutorial tool which can be misused. I think that plea bargaining is acceptable practice used in today's criminal justice system because it results in a quick conviction without the need to commit the time and resources necessary for a trial and judges accept pleas which are result of bargaining process because such pleas reduce the workload of the court.

Q3. What is an expert witness? A lay witness? What different kinds of testimony might they provide? What are some challenges of expert testimony?

A. An expert witness is a person who has knowledge and skills recognized by the court as relevant to the determination of guilt or innocence. Lay witness is an eyewitness, character witness, or other person called upon to testify who is not considered an expert. Expert witness testimony demonstrates their expertise through education, work experience, publications, and awards. Their testimony at trial provides an effective way of introducing scientific evidence in such areas as medicine, psychology, ballistics, crime scene analysis, photography, and many other disciplines. Lay witness testimony are going to be about what they saw like who committed