0 Comment

Judges employ definite guidelines and philosophies when formulating their verdicts. They are. retribution, test of proportionality, rehabilitation, deterrence and restoration. The drive towards court unification can not ultimately lead to a monolithic system because this will grant the federal court system excessive power. The dual court system is a two tier judiciary system comprising of the State and Federal court structures. The dual-court system is the product of a universal agreement amongst the country’s founders concerning the requirement for individual states to maintain considerable legislative power and judicial independence separate from federal control. Unification onto a monolithic court structure appears improbable to occur anytime to combine the state and federal structures, and if it did would likely not be extremely effective. In sentencing, judges are restricted by statutory requirements. guided by existing philosophical rationales, executive considerations, and presentence inquiry reports. and subjective to their own individual characteristics. Q1. According to Neubauer and Fradella (2010), the dual court system of the United States comprises federal and state courts, which is a product of federalism. The U.S. Constitution institutes the judicial division of the federal administration and stipulates the power of the federal courts. Federal courts have restricted authority only over definite types of cases, for instance, cases concerning arguments between states, federal laws and cases concerning foreign governments. In other areas, federal courts share authority with state courts. For instance, both federal and state courts might make decisions on cases regarding parties who reside in dissimilar states. State courts cover exclusive authority above a majority of cases. While State courts developed from early colonial arrangements, federal courts where established by the United States constitution. Dual court system has been affected by its account since the model of two court structures still remains. There have been modifications to the individual courts to create them run smoother akin to the three tier homogeneous structure taken up by the state courts. The administration of state courts is by their own constitution and statutes, US Constitution and statutes, rulings and model from superior courts in the state, judgments of the federal courts in their jurisdiction, and by example from the US Supreme Court and federal petition courts in their area of jurisdiction. According to Reid (2011), US Constitution and Statutes, the US Supreme Court, and judgments from the petition courts in their jurisdiction guide the federal courts. The association between federal and state courts is viewed as judicial federalism. Judicial federalism is a hierarchical structure that is commonly understood and has a legal establishment. The federal Constitution institutes a national court structure and specifies that discrepancies between federal and state law. These are to be determined in preference of the former, and the judges of the state courts are compiled by this principle. Thus, state courts should give priority to federal over state law, and infer with the federal law in line with existing judgments of the Supreme Court. The Court’s fundamental justice and appropriate process guidelines, enunciated to give state courts with the flexibility to extend satisfactory protections of the accused, were regarded as indistinct and subjective. Several state judges made