The document discusses the dual-court system in America with separate civil and criminal courts, and whether a unified system like the federal courts could work at the state level. It also examines judges' sentencing philosophies, whether they lean towards rehabilitation or retribution, and what factors influence their rulings. Judges may alter guidelines depending on circumstances, such as an extremely difficult case that challenges their rationales.
General Principles of Intellectual Property: Concepts of Intellectual Proper...
Court System What is the dual-court system(civilcri.docx
1. Court System
What is the
dual-court system
(civil/criminal), and why does America have a dual-court
system?
Court unification involves consolidating many lower courts of
special or limited jurisdiction into a centrally run court system.
The federal district courts hear both civil and criminal cases in
the same courtrooms, heard by the same judge. Could a large,
single court system like the federal district courts be an
effective system at the state level? Consider how it would
change the court system in your state.
Judges
Judges have specific philosophical rationales and sentencing
guidelines when providing a judgment over presented facts.
If you were a judge, what would be your sentencing goals and
philosophical rationales? Why?
Would you lean more toward rehabilitation, for example, or
might you tend toward retribution?
What factors would matter most to you when deciding a
sentence?
2. Under what circumstances (if any) would your guidelines or
sentencing goals change?
What is an example of a situation that might be extremely
difficult to judge that could make you change your sentencing
goals or philosophical rationales?