AlverniaJudicial ProcessSpring06: Team 1/Chapter 2/Critical Thinking Questions

Monday, March 20, 2006

Team 1/Chapter 2/Critical Thinking Questions

Team 1
You must repeat the question you are answering. If you wish to add something to someone else's answer, you must state: "Addition to Question ______"

To receive full credit your answer must be detailed, respond to the question, clear, grammatically correct and properly punctuated. If you have more than one spelling error, you will not receive credit.

# posted by dfreeman @ 8:01 AM

Comments:

3. If O.J. Simpson had been tried in France, what procedural differences in the case would have occurred? Would the substantive findings also have been different?

The major procedural difference O.J. Simpson would have faced France would be the lack of a jury trial. Rather than facing a jury of his peers, as is the case in the United States, the case would instead have been handled by an investigative judge. The judge, a civil servant rather than an elected or appointed official, would conduct the initial investigation to determine whether charges will be brought (during which time Mr. Simpson may be held in custody without charge). Once this investigation is completed, a process which could take months, the judge will hear evidence presented by witnesses, including evidence which would be inadmissible in an American court such as hearsay. Both prosecutors and defense attorneys would be allowed to question witnesses, though not cross examine, but most of the questions would come from a panel of judges. Finally, Mr. Simpson would be found guilty or not guilty not by the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in the United States, but rather by “conviction intime du juge”, meaning the judge’s personal belief of what really happened.

It is, of course, impossible to say whether or not the substantive findings would have been different with any certainty. However, it is still quite likely. One of the major weaknesses of the prosecution’s case was the highly technical nature of the DNA evidence. By design, none of the members of a jury are experts in law enforcement. Not only did the DNA evidence have to be shown to be accurate, but the science behind it also had to be explained. An investigative judge, on the other hand, would have much more experience in the field and might be able to more easily understand such testimony. Another problem in the prosecution’s case was the presence of Marc Furman. His highly inflammatory, racist comments and previous record of corruption were thought to have tainted the jury, drawn from the already racially charged population of Los Angeles, against law enforcement. Again, a professional investigative judge may have been more inclined to ignore Mr. Furman’s racist attitude and focus more on the evidence.

The one substantive finding that definitely would have changed would be the findings of the civil suit brought against O.J. Simpson by the Goldman family. Rather than being found innocent in a criminal court but liable in a civil court, both suits would have been “piggy backed” together so that the result of the criminal trial would also have been the result of the civil trial.

# posted by

Anonymous : 9:18 AM

2. All non-English-speaking industrial democracies use the inquisitorial system rather than the adversary system. In this system the judge, not prosecutor and not the defense attorney, calls witnesses and questions them. Would you prefer being tried under the adversary system or the inquisitorial system? Would you have confidence in the willingness of the judge to equally search out evidence for conviction and evidence for acquittal?

I would greatly prefer being tried under the adversary system rather than the inquisitorial system. The inquisitorial system places a great deal of trust and faith in the judge to remain impartial with little or no oversight for abuses of such power. I have very little confidence in such a system. The law is supposed to be fair and impartial to all, not relying solely on the discretion and predilections of one individual. The adversary system, on the other hand gives me the advantage of a trained legal professional to zealously represent me. Especially given today’s Byzantine legal system with its countless laws, regulations, ordinances, precedents, and loopholes, a trained legal professional is necessary to wade through this legal morass to even know what options are available, let alone pursue them. This is neatly balanced by the prosecution’s trained legal professional working to convict me. Having two trained professionals of comparable skill and ability working zealously to represent their sides provides much greater and more reliable balance than one individual working through his or her individual biases.

# posted by

Anonymous : 9:19 AM

1. what common groung do these two approaches share and where do they disagree most?

The Crime Control Model believes that punishment will deter crime and the Due Process Model believes that rehabilitation will prevent crime. The Due Process Model emphasize protecting the rights of the individual. The Crime Control Model stresses the necessity of speed and closure in the courts for the suppression of defendants.

# posted by

Anonymous : 10:27 AM

4. How have legislatures responded to crimes involving the use of computers?

Law enforcement agencies monitor chat rooms and set-up sting operations in an effort to arrest pedophiles and criminals stealing credit cards information.

# posted by

Anonymous : 10:35 AM

Gloria Range

2. All non-English-speaking industrial democracies use the inquisitorial system rather than the adversary system. In this system the judge, not the prosecutor and not the defense attorney, calls witnesses and questions them. Would you prefer being tried under the adversary system or the inquisitorial system? Would you have confidence in the willingness of the judge to search out equally evidence for conviction and evidence in acquittal?

Law is supposed to be fair and unbiased. I don't think that it's fair for one man to have the power to make a decision on another person's life.

In the inquisitorial system the judge makes decisions, the judge could be biased or have prejudice opinion of a person's religion, race, appearance, gender etc. although being a judge one would think not, but everyone has hangups over something. In the inquisitory system I don't think it would work in all cases the opinion of one man is not always fair or just especially when a decision of guilty or not guilty can affect a person for the rest of his/her life.

In the adversary system there is a team of professionals of law along with law abiding citizens who help make decisions of guilty or not guilty, there maybe prejudices in this group also but one's faith is in the hands of many opinions, whereas discussions take place and everyone get's to hear the opinions of all before making a decision. I would prefer the adversary system over the inquisitory system. I feel it's more lawful to have a team with different opinions over one man's opinion, although the expense is costly, one's case is being viewed through many eyes and ears, everyone interpretation is different, what one person missed the other's may get, which helps in making a fair decision over a person's life.

# posted by

Anonymous : 7:22 AM

All non-English speaking industrial democracies use the inquisitorial system rather than the adversary system. In this system the judge, not the prosecutor and no the defense attorney, calls witnesses and questions them. Would you prefer being tried under the adversary system or the inquisitorial system? Would you have confidence in the willingness of the judge to equally search out evidence for conviction and evidence for acquittal?

I would prefer being tried under the inquisitorial system. I would not have the confidence in the willingness of the judge to equally search out evidence for conviction and evidence for acquittal. In a system where a judge calls witnesses and question them, the chances of being convicted would be high. I would rather my fate rest on a jury, rather than one person.

# posted by

Anonymous : 1:17 PM