American Legal Eagles Where Are You?

by Englishman 14 Replies latest jw friends

  • Englishman
    Englishman

    There’s been lots of posts recently concerning the American justice system. To be fair, most of us Europeans don’t really understand it very well, and we have been giving you Yanks a bit of a hard time lately, so I think that it would be great if we could all have some enlightenment on how it works.

    For example, in the UK there is one law that applies to every citizen no matter who they are. In the US, different states seem have different laws. What I want to know is does a state only have control over minor laws, and the US as a nation have control over the more serious laws, or can a state have the final say?

    Also, I was first intrigued by the justice system a couple of years ago when British nanny Louise Woodward was put on trial accused of murdering Mathew Eappen in Boston. It was beamed over here on Court TV via Sky 1, and millions watched it avidly. (Cameras aren’t allowed in UK courts)

    While most were surprised at the guilty verdict, what really rocked us was that Judge Zobel refused to accept the jury’s verdict, and overturned its decision, replacing it with a verdict of involuntary manslaughter. She was immediately released! Stunning stuff! Is that normal, for a judge to throw out a jury’s decision?* http://www.courttv.com/news/report.html

    So come on you US whiz-kids, and give us ignorant Brits and Aussies an introductory lesson on the American justice system and how it works. We might even stop sniping at you, TR!

    Englishman.

    ..... fanaticism masquerading beneath a cloak of reasoned logic.

  • Julie
    Julie

    Hey E-man,

    I am no lawyer and I don't even pretend to be a law student but I do know this: If a judge overseeing a case feels that the jury was incorrect in it's verdict based on the law and the case presented he/she does have the authority to overturn and/or alter it.

    Our justice system isn't perfect but it's got plenty of merit. I just did jury duty two weeks ago and was pleased with what I saw.

    Julie, who thinks the parents involved in the British nanny case should have sprung for someone better qualified and have paid a horrible price for saving a few bucks on a cheaper, less experienced care-giver

  • Englishman
    Englishman

    Wotcha, Julie:

    A UK judge sometimes direct a jury to return a not-guilty verdict, but this is before the jury retires and he has no power to overturn the verdict if they choose to ignore him.

    I would appreciate some info re how state and federal law is separated.

    Englishman.

    ..... fanaticism masquerading beneath a cloak of reasoned logic.

  • JustAThought
    JustAThought

    Englishman,

    Here, hopefully, is some enlightenment on part of your question. Not my words, of course, ...

    American Government

    The federal entity created by the Constitution is by far the dominant feature of the American governmental system. But the system itself is in reality a mosaic, composed of thousands of smaller units -- building blocks which together make up the whole. There are 50 state governments plus the government of the District of Columbia, and further down the ladder are still smaller units that govern counties, cities, towns and villages.

    This multiplicity of governmental units is best understood in terms of the evolution of the United States. The federal system, it has been seen, was the last step in an evolutionary process. Prior to the Constitution, there were the governments of the separate colonies (later states) and prior to those, the governments of counties and smaller units. One of the first tasks accomplished by the early English settlers was the creation of governmental units for the tiny settlements they established along the Atlantic coast. Even before the Pilgrims disembarked from their ship in 1620, they formulated the Mayflower Compact, the first written American constitution. And as the new nation pushed westward, each frontier outpost created its own government to manage its affairs.

    The drafters of the U.S. Constitution left this multilayered governmental system untouched. While they made the national structure supreme, they wisely recognized the need for a series of governments more directly in contact with the people and more keenly attuned to their needs. Thus, certain functions -- such as defense, currency regulation and foreign relations -- could only be managed by a strong centralized government. But others - - such as sanitation, education and local transportation -- belong mainly to local jurisdictions.

    Before their independence, colonies were governed separately by the British Crown. In the early years of the republic, prior to the adoption of the Constitution, each state was virtually an autonomous unit. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention sought a stronger, more viable federal union, but they were also intent on safeguarding the rights of the states.

    In general, matters that lie entirely within state borders are the exclusive concern of state governments. These include internal communications; regulations relating to property, industry, business and public utilities; the state criminal code; and working conditions within the state. Within this context, the federal government requires that state governments must be democratic in form and that they adopt no laws which contradict or violate the federal Constitution or the laws and treaties of the United States.

    There are, of course, many areas of overlap between state and federal jurisdictions. Particularly in recent years, the federal government has assumed ever broadening responsibility in such matters as health, education, welfare, transportation, and housing and urban development. But where the federal government exercises such responsibility in the states, programs are usually adopted on the basis of cooperation between the two levels of government, rather than as an imposition from above.

    Like the national government, state governments have three branches: legislative, executive and judicial; and these are roughly equivalent in function and scope to their national counterparts. The chief executive of a state is the governor, elected by popular vote, typically for a four-year term (although in a few states the term is two years). Except for Nebraska, which has a single legislative body, all states have a bicameral legislature, with the upper house usually called the Senate and the lower house the House of Representatives, House of Delegates or the General Assembly. In most states, senators serve four-year terms and members of the lower house serve too-year terms.

    The constitutions of the various states differ in some details but generally follow a pattern similar to that of the federal Constitution, including a statement of the rights of the people and a plan for organizing the government. On such matters as conditions governing the operation of businesses, banks, public utilities and charitable institutions, state constitutions are often more detailed and explicit than the federal one. Each state constitution, however, provides that the final authority belongs to the people, and sets certain standards and principles as the foundation of government.

    Once predominantly rural, the United States is today a highly urbanized country, and more than three-quarters of its citizens now live in towns, large cities or the suburbs. This statistic makes city governments critically important in the overall pattern of American government. To a greater extent than on the federal or state level, the city directly serves the needs of the people, providing everything from police and fire protection to sanitary codes, health regulations, education, public transportation and housing.

    The business of running America's major cities is enormously complex. Only seven states of the union, for example, have populations larger than that of New York City. It is often said that, next to the presidency, the most difficult executive position in the country is that of mayor of New York.

    City governments are chartered by states, and their charters detail the objectives and powers of the municipal government. But in many respects the cities function independently of the states. For most big cities, however, cooperation with both state and federal organizations is essential to meeting the needs of their residents.

  • Skimmer
    Skimmer

    Hello Englishman:

    I remember the Woodward case quite well. The press here in the United States had much to say about the incident and trial, and there was more than a little criticism of the parents' seeming lack of involvement with raising their children. In particular, there were a lot of hard feelings towards the child's mother for persuing money that the family didn't really need and spending more time on her career than caring about her offspring. A lot of people had a hard time believing that Woodward would do anything, intentionally or not, to harm a child. A few thought that there was some cover-up of wrongdoing by someone other than Woodward.

    Since an establishment of intent is required for a murder conviction, I can understand why the judge acted to reduce the charge. A side issue is the release of Woodward immediately after the trial; she had served nine months and some thought that this wasn't long enough.

    Personally, I think the judge acted properly in a hard case.

    -----

    On occasion, although not very often, a judge will downgrade or discard a jury verdict of guilty. Also, it is not uncommon for a judge, usually via appeal, to reduce monetary awards established by jury verdict.

    I cannot recall any instance of a judge discarding a verdict of not guilty. This may not be allowed.

  • Englishman
    Englishman

    Thanks very much for the info. Supose then that someone commits a crime in one state and this results in imprisonment. What happens if the perpetrator is then found to have committed crimes in other states, does he have to serve several sentences in different states?

    Englishman.

    ..... fanaticism masquerading beneath a cloak of reasoned logic.

  • Pork Chop
    Pork Chop

    Absolutely Englishman, some criminals journey from state prison to state prison. Occasionally if one state convicts someone of something serious like murder with a major penalty then another state that has convicted the same individual for a lesser offense will just go ahead and hand the criminal off for the major bust, especially if they're going to fry them.

  • Hmmm
    Hmmm

    I'm in WAY over my head, here, but I'll give it a shot:

    does a state only have control over minor laws, and the US as a nation have control over the more serious laws, or can a state have the final say?

    That's pretty much what the Civil War (1860s (don't know how to convert the date to the metric system)) was about. Slavery was an ancillary issue, a specific example of the issue of state's rights.

    I couldn't tell you the specifics, but certain crimes fall under Federal jurisdiction (pretty much anything worse than chaining your alligator to a fire hydrant, which is against the law in the state of Michigan, gets the Feds involved).

    if the perpetrator is then found to have committed crimes in other states, does he have to serve several sentences in different states?

    That can happen. But if someone is committing crimes in multiple states, they're probably Federal crimes, in which case they'll be sent to a federal prison, and I think they'll usually just let you rot in one place for all your crimes.

    Federal prisons have different security levels. Hardened criminals, or ones who commit violent crimes, will be sent to higher-security prisons, so they can be raped by bigger inmates. This might mean that you'll serve your time in a different state than where you committed the crime(s).

    It's pretty rare for a judge to overturn a jury verdict, and he's opening the way for years of appeals.

    Being a faithful JW for many years, I could be all wrong about matters of non-theocratic gubmint. Most of my information comes from watching The Practice and the OJ Simpson trial.

    Hmmm

  • DannyBear
    DannyBear

    Englishman,

    Jurisdiction is a big issue with law enforcer's in the USA.

    To illustrate this, today while driving on a military installation, I was stopped by the military police, for speeding. The citation was given by the US Federal Court. If I would have been stopped outside the military reservation, by state or local law enforcement, the court of jurisdiction would be the State of California, administered by county courts. How's that for confusing you further?

    BTW my fine was $50.00. The state sanction would probably have been about twice that.

    Danny

  • TR
    TR

    Englishman,

    Here's a link to the Constitution of the State of Washington, where I live: ftp://ftp.leg.wa.gov/pub/other/washington_constitution.txt

    TR

    "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every
    form of tyranny over the mind of man." --Thomas Jefferson*

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit