The jury trial method may be believed to have resulted from the Common Law. This system traces back to England in times of Alfred the Great and Anglo-Saxons. However, Messrs have fully disregarded the Anglo-Saxon system. The history of early English Law traces this system’s origin from the Franks, who are believed to have used this system for their own selfish gains, as opposed to the actual intention of the law, which should have been improving England. Some people believe that this system’s actual originality can be traced from the praetor in the Roman law, who used it to determine facts that could be related to legal controversies when he settled a law that was applicable to it. This method of trial by the jury was not so popular before the era of the Stuarts, or towards the end of the eighteenth century. Trial system has become hugely popular in the American Jurisprudence. In the early days, the jury depended on the sheriff for any direction as far decisions of any case were concerned; this hampered the promotion of justice. In 1776, the state of Virginia adopted its first Constitution, in which already in the first clause was stated that the judiciary, legislative, and executive departments were to be distinct and separate. As such, neither exercises the powers belonging to the other properly. All the other States later adopted this system; and at the end, it became a part of America’s Federal Constitution.
Buy Law Opinion essay paper online
The common heritage law is a legal technique that mostly relies on the precedents built by the courts and the judges and not the legislature. Even though, the legislature places a particularly crucial role, as far as the legal systems are concerned, it mostly seems that the law officials and the public have some disparities in their interpretation of statues. In this case, the judges become useful when it comes to comparison of past and present decisions made by a judge in similar cases. If a unique situation that had no earlier precedent arises, a judge may be expected to develop a case law by ruling in such a way that will affect all the future cases that are of the same circumstance. The most crucial aspect of common law method is that in all the cases that seem to have a similar circumstance, the court should give a similar ruling. This system is also known as the case law, since it has developed from the results of a given case. Common law system was first built up in England after 1066 Norman Conquest. The kings tried to merge the legal system and in its place restore the multitude of single systems, which ruled every small county between the 12th and 13th centuries. Once it became evident that the Norman Inquest would overtake the existing legal systems, the decision made by the judiciary was recorded paving the way to the system of precedent and custom. As opposed to the criminal law, the common law method was used when deciding tort cases where a plaintiff would request for compensation from a wrongdoing caused by the defendant. King Henry the Second played an extremely vital role in ending the laws that characterized certain areas and in its place introduced the common law system by abolishing the outdated crime punishments. Common laws are popular in decision of cases that may be based on contract law, civil torts, and property laws, since these laws does not exist in the legislature, they are entirely in common laws (Blackhall, 2005).
A number of factors should be taken into account during the creation of laws. Some of these factors include the security of the existing population, as far as the existence of a given law may be concerned. The importance of a given law to the society should be evident. A law should never discriminate, but instead should unite people. As such, any law that divides the people should not qualify as a law. If its presence dictates order and peaceful coexistence in the society, then it can be said to be a law. Any principle that does not respect life and property should never be qualified as a law. Laws bring people of different ethnicity and beliefs together and help to coexist harmoniously.
There are two kinds of courts that exist in America: federal and state court. Each of these courts has its distinctive characteristics and may usually be established by the state. It may also be necessary to note that counties, cities, and municipalities establish the other local courts. All these courts fall under the umbrella of the state courts. On the other hand, the establishment of the federal courts could be under the U.S. Constitution, having the responsibility of solving the disputes that involve the laws passed by the Congress and the Constitution. The main difference between the state and federal courts could be in their jurisdiction. The state courts have a bigger jurisdiction, for instance, traffic violation, robberies, family and broken contracts refer to the state courts. The state courts do not have the mandate of proceeding over the lawsuits that have been put forward against the United States and those cases concerning given federal laws, such as, for instance, antitrust, patent, criminal, bankruptcy, and copyright (Blanpa, 2007).
Most criminal cases involving violations of the existing state laws are held by the state courts, but the criminal cases that include the federal laws are mostly tried in the federal courts. Although robbery is a crime, it falls under the state law and not in the federal law. Federal laws have minimal laws on robbery; for example, it is a federal offence to rob a bank with deposits, which has been insured by the federal agency. It is the responsibility of the federal courts to curb the entrance of illegal drugs in to the state. The federal courts have the responsibility of hearing the cases from the state law, if it is believed that the existing state law is in violation of the Federal Constitution. The state courts file 30,000,000 cases annually, while the federal courts file only 1,000,000 cases annually.
Most popular orders
What Our Customers Say
Check our customer feedback to ensure that we offer top-notch papers