1.
Probate
–
Probate is the legal process whereby a will is proved in a court and accepted as a valid public document that is the true last testament of the deceased. The granting of probate is the first step in the process of administering the estate of a deceased person, resolving all claims. A probate court decides the legal validity of a testators will and grants its approval, also known as granting probate, the probated will then becomes a legal instrument that may be enforced by the executor in the law courts if necessary. A probate also officially appoints the executor, generally named in the will, however, through the probate process, a will may be contested. Probate is a process of improvement that proves a will of a person is valid. As with any legal proceeding, there are aspects to probate administration, Creditors must be notified. Executors of the will must be guided in how and when to distribute assets, a Petition to appoint a personal representative may need to be filed and letters of administration issued. A Grant of Letters of Administration can be used as proof that the ‘Administrator is entitled to handle the assets, homestead property, which follows its own set of unique rules in states like Florida, must be dealt with separately from other assets. There are time factors involved in filing and objecting to claims against the estate, there may be a lawsuit pending over the decedents death or there may have been pending suits that are now continuing. There may be separate procedures required in contentious probate cases, real estate or other property may need to be sold to effect correct distribution of assets pursuant to the will or merely to pay debts. Estate taxes, gift taxes or inheritance taxes must be considered if the estate exceeds certain thresholds, costs of the administration including ordinary taxation such as income tax on interest and property taxation is deducted from assets in the estate before distribution by the executors of the will. Other assets may simply need to be transferred from the deceased to his or her beneficiaries, other assets may have pay on death or transfer on death designations, which avoids probate. Local laws governing the process often depend on the value. If the value of the estate is small, the probate process may be avoided. In some jurisdictions and/or at a threshold, probate must be applied for by the Executor/Administrator or a Probate lawyer filing on their behalf. The Probate lawyer is a specialist in law, who makes application representing the Executor/Administrator. In common law jurisdictions, probate is obtained by executors of a will while letters of administration are granted where there are no executors, the main UK source of law is the Wills Act 1837. Probate was originally handled by the Court of Chancery, but after that court was abolished in 1873, an executor is the person appointed by a will to act on the behalf of the estate of the will maker upon his or her death
2.
Jury trial
–
A jury trial, or trial by jury, is a legal proceeding in which a jury makes a decision or findings of fact, which then direct the actions of a judge. It is distinguished from a trial in which a judge or panel of judges makes all decisions. Only the United States makes routine use of trials in a wide variety of non-criminal cases. The availability of a trial by jury in American jurisdictions varies, as a result, this practice continues in American civil laws, but in modern English law, only criminal proceedings and some inquests are likely to be heard by a jury. Jury trials are of far less importance in countries that do not have a common law system, ancient Athens had a mechanism, called dikastaí, to assure that no one could select jurors for their own trial. For normal cases, the courts were made up of dikastai of up to 500 citizens. For capital cases—those that involved death, loss of liberty, exile, loss of civil rights, in such large juries, the unanimity rule would be unrealistic, and verdicts were reached by majority. Jurists cast a ceramic disk with an axle in its middle, thus the way they voted was kept secret because the jurists would hold their disk by the axle by thumb and forefinger, thus hiding whether its axle was hollow or solid. Since Periclean times, jurists were compensated for their sitting in court, the institution of trial by jury was ritually depicted by Aeschylus in the Eumenides, the third and final play of his Oresteia trilogy. In the play, the innovation is brought about by the goddess Athena, the god Apollo takes part in the trial as the advocate for the defendant Orestes and the Furies as prosecutors for the slain Clytaemnestra. In the event the jury is split six to six, and Athena dicates that in such a case, capital trials were held in front of juries composed of hundreds or thousands of people in the commitias or centuries, the same as in Roman trials. Roman law provided for the selection of judices, who would be responsible for resolving disputes by acting as jurors. High government officials and their relatives were barred from acting as judices and those previously found guilty of serious crimes were also barred as were gladiators for hire, who likely were hired to resolve disputes through trial by combat. A Swabian ordinance of 1562 called for the summons of jurymen, and various methods were in use in Emmendingen, Oppenau, and Oberkirch. Hauensteins charter of 1442 secured the right to be tried in all cases by 24 fellow equals, the modern jury trial was first introduced in the Rhenish provinces in 1798, with a court consisting most commonly of 12 citizens. In Constance the jury trial was suppressed by decree of the Habsburg Monarchy in 1786, an 1873 draft on criminal procedure produced by the Prussian Ministry of Justice proposed to abolish the jury and replace it with the mixed system, causing a significant political debate. In the Weimar Republic the jury was abolished by the Emminger Reform of 4 January 1924 and they had no professional lawyers, but many of their farmer-warriors, like Njal, the truth-teller, were learned in folk custom and in its intricate judicial procedure. A Danish town in England often had, as its main officers and these juries differed from the modern sort by being self-informing, instead of getting information through a trial, the jurors were required to investigate the case themselves
3.
Presumption of innocence
–
The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted, under the Justinian Codes and English common law, the accused is presumed innocent in criminal proceedings, and in civil proceedings both sides must issue proof. The same principle is recognized by Islamic law, the sixth century Digest of Justinian provides, as a general rule of evidence, Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat—Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies. It is there attributed to the second and third century jurist Paul and it was introduced in Roman criminal law by emperor Antoninus Pius. Similar to that of Roman Law, Islamic law also holds the principle that the onus of proof is on the accusor or claimant based on a hadith documented by Imam Nawawi. Suspicion is also highly condemned, this also from a hadith documented by Imam Nawawi as well as Imam Bukhari, after the time of Muhammad, the fourth Caliph Ali ibn Abi Thalib has also been cited to say Avert the prescribed punishment by rejecting doubtful evidence. After the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe fell back on a Germanic system that presumed guilt, the accused could prove his innocence by having, for example, twelve people swear that he could not have done what he was accused of. This tended to favor the nobility over the lower classes, in sources from common law jurisdictions, the expression appears in an extended version, in its original form and then in a shortened form. As found in its form, it is, Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat—The proof lies upon the one who affirms. Then, shortened from the original, it is, Ei incumbit probatio qui—the onus of proving a fact rests upon the man who. The maxim or its equivalent has been adopted by civil law systems, including Brazil, France, Italy, Philippines, Poland, Romania. Presumption of innocence serves to emphasize that the prosecution has the obligation to each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. This is often expressed in the phrase innocent until proven guilty, Garrow insisted that accusers be robustly tested in court. An objective observer in the position of the juror must reasonably conclude that the defendant almost certainly committed the crime and it is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial. It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, to ensure this legal protection is maintained a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials. With respect to the facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence. The jury or judge is not to any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court
4.
Sentence (law)
–
A sentence is a decree of punishment. In law, a forms the final explicit act of a judge-ruled process. The sentence can generally involve a decree of imprisonment, a fine and/or other punishments against a defendant convicted of a crime and those imprisoned for multiple crimes will serve a consecutive sentence, a concurrent sentence, or somewhere in between, sometimes subject to a cap. Additional sentences include, Intermediate or those served on the weekend, if a sentence gets reduced to a less harsh punishment, then the sentence is said to have been mitigated or commuted. Rarely murder charges are mitigated and reduced to manslaughter charges, Sentencing law sometimes includes cliffs that result in much stiffer penalties when certain facts apply. For instance, a career criminal or habitual offender law may subject a defendant to a significant increase in his sentence if he commits a third offense of a certain kind. This makes it difficult for fine gradations in punishments to be achieved, the first use of this word with this meaning was in Roman law, where it indicated the opinion of a jurist on a given question, expressed in written or in oral responsa. It was also the opinion of senators and it finally was also the decision of the judging organ, as well as the decision of the Arbiters. Sentences are variously classified depending on the field, or kind of action, or system it refers to, civil, penal, administrative. Sentences of mere clearance, of condemnation, of constitution, the jurisdiction and the legal competence, single judges, courts, tribunals, appeals, supreme courts, constitutional courts, etc. meant as the various degrees of judgment and appeal. The content, partial, cautelar, interlocutory, preliminar, definitive sentences and this kind of sentence became better developed and remained in wider use in common law systems. The sentence meted out depends on the principle used by the court. Depending on respective systems, the phases that precede the sentence may vary relevantly, the sentence usually has to be rendered of public domain and in most systems it has to be accompanied by the reasons for its content. A sentence can be annulled in some cases, that many systems usually pre-determine. The most frequent case is related to irregularities found ex-post in the procedure, the most éclatant is perhaps in penal cases, in most systems the definitive sentence is unique, in the precise sense that no one can be judged more than once for the same action. Sentences are in many systems a source of law, as an interpretation of the law in front of concrete cases. The sentence is issued by the judge in the name of the superior authority of the state. Criminal costs Criminal sentencing in Canada Criminal sentencing in the United States English criminal law Incapacitation Sentencing disparity Sentencing in England and Wales Sentencing
5.
Capital punishment
–
Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is a government sanctioned practice whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime. The sentence that someone be punished in such a manner is referred to as a death sentence, etymologically, the term capital in this context alluded to execution by beheading. Fifty-six countries retain capital punishment,103 countries have abolished it de jure for all crimes, six have abolished it for ordinary crimes. Capital punishment is a matter of controversy in various countries and states. In the European Union, Article 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union prohibits the use of capital punishment, also, the Council of Europe, which has 47 member states, prohibits the use of the death penalty by its members. The United Nations General Assembly has adopted, in 2007,2008,2010,2012 and 2014, non-binding resolutions calling for a moratorium on executions. Although most nations have abolished capital punishment, over 60% of the population live in countries where executions take place, such as China, India. Execution of criminals and political opponents has been used by nearly all societies—both to punish crime, in most countries that practise capital punishment it is reserved for murder, terrorism, war crimes, espionage, treason, defection or as part of military justice. In many countries use the death penalty, drug trafficking is also a capital offence. In China, human trafficking and serious cases of corruption are punished by the death penalty, in militaries around the world courts-martial have imposed death sentences for offences such as cowardice, desertion, insubordination, and mutiny. The use of formal execution extends to the beginning of recorded history, most historical records and various primitive tribal practices indicate that the death penalty was a part of their justice system. Communal punishment for wrongdoing generally included compensation by the wrongdoer, corporal punishment, shunning, banishment, usually, compensation and shunning were enough as a form of justice. The response to crime committed by neighbouring tribes or communities included a formal apology, a blood feud or vendetta occurs when arbitration between families or tribes fails or an arbitration system is non-existent. This form of justice was common before the emergence of a system based on state or organized religion. It may result from crime, land disputes or a code of honour, acts of retaliation underscore the ability of the social collective to defend itself and demonstrate to enemies that injury to property, rights, or the person will not go unpunished. However, in practice, it is difficult to distinguish between a war of vendetta and one of conquest. Elaborations of tribal arbitration of feuds included peace settlements often done in a religious context, compensation was based on the principle of substitution which might include material compensation, exchange of brides or grooms, or payment of the blood debt. Settlement rules could allow for animal blood to replace human blood, the person offered for execution did not have to be an original perpetrator of the crime because the system was based on tribes, not individuals
6.
Life imprisonment
–
Life imprisonment is any sentence of imprisonment for a crime under which convicted persons are to remain in prison for the rest of their lives or until paroled. Life imprisonment can, in cases, also be imposed for traffic offenses causing death. Canada and some U. S. states allow judges to impose life imprisonment for such offenses and this sentence does not exist in all countries. Portugal was the first country in the world to life imprisonment by the prison reforms of Sampaio e Melo in 1884. However, where life imprisonment is a sentence, there may also be formal mechanisms to request parole after a certain period of imprisonment. This means that a convict could be entitled to spend the rest of the sentence outside prison, early release is usually conditional depending on past and future conduct, possibly with certain restrictions or obligations. In contrast, when a term of imprisonment has ended. The United States leads in life sentences, at a rate of 50 people per 100,000 residents imprisoned for life, the length of time and the conditions surrounding parole vary greatly for each jurisdiction. In some places, convicts are entitled to apply for parole relatively early, in others, however, the time until being entitled to apply for parole does not necessarily tell anything about the actual date of parole being granted. The highest determined prison sentence that can be imposed in the ICC, after this period, the court will review the sentence to determine whether or not it should be reduced. Some technically finite sentences are handed out, especially in the U. S. that exceed the maximum life span and are therefore seen as de facto life sentences. He committed suicide in his cell one month later. Courts in South Africa have handed out at least two sentences that have exceeded a century and were thus symbolic life sentences, unlike other areas of criminal law, sentences handed to minors do not differ from those given to legal adults. A few countries worldwide allow for minors to be given sentences that have no provision for eventual release. Of these, only the United States currently has minors serving such sentences, as of 2009, Human Rights Watch had calculated that there were 2,589 youth offenders serving life without parole in the United States. Graham v. Florida was a significant case in juvenile justice, in Jacksonville, Florida, Terrence J. Graham tried to rob a restaurant along with three adolescent accomplices. During the robbery one of Grahams accomplices had a bar that he used to hit the restaurant manager twice in the head. Once arrested, Graham was charged with attempted armed robbery and armed burglary with assault/battery, the maximum sentence he faced from these charges was life without the possibility of parole, and the prosecutor wanted to charge him as an adult
7.
Miscarriage of justice
–
A miscarriage of justice primarily is the conviction and punishment of a person for a crime they did not commit. The term can apply to errors in the other direction—errors of impunity. Most criminal justice systems have means to overturn, or quash, a wrongful conviction. In some instances a wrongful conviction is not overturned for several years, or until after the innocent person has been executed, released from custody, miscarriage of justice is sometimes synonymous with wrongful conviction, referring to a conviction reached in an unfair or disputed trial. Wrongful convictions are frequently cited by death penalty opponents as cause to eliminate death penalties to avoid executing innocent persons, in recent years, DNA evidence has been used to clear many people falsely convicted. The Scandinavian languages have a word, the Swedish variant of which is justitiemord, the term exists in several languages and was originally used for cases where the accused was convicted, executed, and later cleared after death. While a miscarriage of justice is a Type I error for falsely identifying culpability, however, the term miscarriage of justice is often used to describe the latter type as well. With capital punishment decreasing, the expression has acquired an extended meaning, the retention of the term murder represents both universal abhorrence against wrongful convictions and awareness of how destructive wrongful convictions are. Also, the term travesty of justice is used for a gross. Show trials, due to their character, often lead to such travesties, where condemned persons are executed promptly after conviction, the most significant effect of a miscarriage of justice is irreversible. Wrongly executed people nevertheless occasionally receive posthumous pardons—which essentially void the conviction—or have their convictions quashed, many death penalty states hold condemned persons for ten or more years before execution, so that any new evidence that might acquit them will have had time to surface. Even when a convicted person is not executed, years in prison can have a substantial, irreversible effect on the person. The risk of miscarriage of justice is also an argument against long sentences, like a life sentence. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires the victims of miscarriage of justice to be compensated, various studies estimate that in the United States, between 2.3 and 5% of all prisoners are innocent. One study estimated that up to 10,000 people may be convicted of serious crimes each year. A2014 study estimated that 4. 1% of inmates awaiting execution on death row in the United States are innocent, if the conviction turns out to be a miscarriage of justice, then one or both of these statements is ultimately deemed to be false. During this time between the miscarriage of justice and its correction, the public holds false beliefs about the occurrence of a crime, the perpetrator of a crime, or both. While the public audience of a miscarriage of justice certainly varies, in cases where a large-scale audience is unknowingly witness to a miscarriage of justice, the news-consuming public may develop false beliefs about the nature of crime itself
8.
Criminal law
–
Criminal law is the body of law that relates to crime. It regulates social conduct and proscribes whatever is threatening, harmful, or otherwise endangering to the property, health, safety and it includes the punishment of people who violate these laws. Criminal law varies according to jurisdiction, and differs from civil law, the first civilizations generally did not distinguish between civil law and criminal law. The first written codes of law were designed by the Sumerians, another important early code was the Code Hammurabi, which formed the core of Babylonian law. Only fragments of the criminal laws of Ancient Greece have survived, e. g. those of Solon. In Roman law, Gaiuss Commentaries on the Twelve Tables also conflated the civil and criminal aspects, assault and violent robbery were analogized to trespass as to property. Breach of such laws created an obligation of law or vinculum juris discharged by payment of compensation or damages. The criminal law of imperial Rome is collected in Books 47–48 of the Digest, the first signs of the modern distinction between crimes and civil matters emerged during the Norman Invasion of England. The development of the state dispensing justice in a court clearly emerged in the century when European countries began maintaining police services. From this point, criminal law had formalized the mechanisms for enforcement, Criminal law is distinctive for the uniquely serious potential consequences or sanctions for failure to abide by its rules. Every crime is composed of criminal elements, capital punishment may be imposed in some jurisdictions for the most serious crimes. Physical or corporal punishment may be imposed such as whipping or caning, individuals may be incarcerated in prison or jail in a variety of conditions depending on the jurisdiction. Length of incarceration may vary from a day to life, government supervision may be imposed, including house arrest, and convicts may be required to conform to particularized guidelines as part of a parole or probation regimen. Fines also may be imposed, seizing money or property from a convicted of a crime. Five objectives are widely accepted for enforcement of the law by punishments, retribution, deterrence. Jurisdictions differ on the value to be placed on each, retribution – Criminals ought to Be Punished in some way. This is the most widely seen goal, Criminals have taken improper advantage, or inflicted unfair detriment, upon others and consequently, the criminal law will put criminals at some unpleasant disadvantage to balance the scales. People submit to the law to receive the right not to be murdered and if people contravene these laws, thus, one who murders may be executed himself
9.
Evidence (law)
–
The law of evidence also known as the rules of evidence, encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision, the trier of fact is a judge in bench trials, or the jury in any cases involving a jury. The law of evidence is also concerned with the quantum, quality, the rules vary depending upon whether the venue is a criminal court, civil court, or family court, and they vary by jurisdiction. The quantum of evidence is the amount of evidence needed, the quality of proof is how reliable such evidence should be considered, important rules that govern admissibility concern hearsay, authentication, relevance, privilege, witnesses, opinions, expert testimony, identification and rules of physical evidence. There are several types of evidence, depending on the form or source, Evidence governs the use of testimony, exhibits, documentary material, or demonstrative evidence, which are admissible in a judicial or administrative proceeding. The law must ensure certain guidelines are set out in order to ensure that evidence presented to the court can be regarded as trustworthy. The rules of evidence were developed several centuries and are based upon the rules from Anglo-American common law brought to the New World by early settlers. Their purpose is to be fair to both parties, disallowing the raising of allegations without a basis in provable fact and they are sometimes criticized as a legal technicality, but are an important part of the system for achieving a just result. Perhaps the most important of the rules of evidence is that, in general, there are several examples where presiding authorities are not bound by the rules of evidence. These include the military tribunals in the United States and tribunals used in Australia to try health professionals, in every jurisdiction based on the English common law tradition, evidence must conform to a number of rules and restrictions to be admissible. Evidence must be relevant – that is, it must be directed at proving or disproving a legal element, however, the relevance of evidence is ordinarily a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition for the admissibility of evidence. For example, relevant evidence may be excluded if it is unfairly prejudicial, confusing, there is also general agreement that assessment of relevance or irrelevance involves or requires judgements about probabilities or uncertainties. Beyond that, there is little agreement, many legal scholars and judges agree that ordinary reasoning, or common sense reasoning, plays an important role. There is less agreement about whether or not judgements of relevance or irrelevance are defensible only if the reasoning that supports such judgements is made fully explicit. However, most trial judges would reject any such requirement and would say that some judgements can and must rest partly on unarticulated and unarticulable hunches, california Evidence Code section 352 also allows for exclusion to avoid substantial danger of undue prejudice. The United States has a complicated system of evidentiary rules, for example. In Professor Friedmans words, A trained judge would not need all these rules, and indeed, the law of evidence in systems that lack a jury is short, sweet, however, Friedmans views are characteristic of an earlier generation of legal scholars. Under English law, evidence that would otherwise be admissible at trial may be excluded at the discretion of the judge if it would be unfair to the defendant to admit it
10.
Courts of the United States
–
The courts of the United States are closely linked hierarchical systems of courts at the federal and state levels. The federal courts form the judicial branch of the government of the United States and operate under the authority of the United States Constitution. The state and territorial courts of the individual U. S. states and territories operate under the authority of the state and territorial constitutions and state and territorial law. Federal statutes that refer to the courts of the United States are referring only to the courts of the federal government, a few states have two separate supreme courts, with one having authority over civil matters and the other reviewing criminal cases. Three states do not provide a right to a first appeal, rather, they give litigants only a right to petition for the right to have an appeal heard. State courts often have names and structures, as illustrated below. The U. S. federal court system hears cases involving litigants from two or more states, violations of laws, treaties, and the Constitution, admiralty, bankruptcy. In practice, about 80% of the cases are civil and 20% criminal, the civil cases often involve civil rights, patents, and Social Security while the criminal cases involve tax fraud, robbery, counterfeiting, and drug crimes. The trial courts are U. S. district courts, followed by United States courts of appeals, institutions which may be considered courts of the United States are listed below. Each year, the Supreme Court receives over 2,000 applications for leave to appeal from litigants primarily seeking review of decisions by the Michigan Court of Appeals, the Supreme Courts authority to hear cases is discretionary. The Court grants leave to those cases of greatest complexity and public import, each justice is responsible for reviewing each case to determine whether leave should be granted. Cases that are accepted for oral argument may be decided by an order and these orders may affirm or reverse the Michigan Court of Appeals, may remand a case to the trial court, or may adopt a correct Court of Appeals opinion. Cases come before the Court during a term that starts August 1, the Court hears oral arguments in Lansing beginning in October of each term. Decisions are released throughout the term, following oral arguments, in addition to its judicial duties, the Supreme Court is responsible for the general administrative supervision of all courts in the state. The Supreme Court also establishes rules for practice and procedure in all courts, Michigan Court of Appeals The Michigan Court of Appeals is one of the highest volume intermediate appellate courts in the country. It was created by the 1963 Michigan Constitution and heard its first cases in January 1965, generally, decisions from final orders of a circuit court, as well as some probate court and agency orders, may be appealed to the court as a matter of right. Other lower court or tribunal decisions may be appealed only by application for leave to appeal, the judges of the Court of Appeals sit state-wide, although they are elected or appointed from one of four districts. The districts and their locations are as follows, District I is based in Detroit, District II is based in Troy, District III is based in Grand Rapids
11.
Courts of England and Wales
–
The United Kingdom does not have a single unified legal system—England and Wales have one system, Scotland another, and Northern Ireland a third. Additionally, the Military Court Service has jurisdiction over all members of the forces of the United Kingdom in relation to offences against military law. The Supreme Court is the highest appeal court in almost all cases in England, before the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 this role was held by the House of Lords. The Supreme Court is also the highest court of appeal for devolution matters, the Privy Council is the highest court of appeal for a small number of Commonwealth countries, colonies and the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. There are a number of smaller jurisdictions, such as appeals from ecclesiastical and professional bodies. The judges who sit on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council are also the members of the Supreme Court, the Senior Courts of England and Wales were originally created by the Judicature Acts as the Supreme Court of Judicature. It was renamed the Supreme Court of England and Wales in 1981 and it consists of the following courts, Court of Appeal High Court of Justice Crown Court The Court of Appeal deals only with appeals from other courts or tribunals. Its decisions are binding on all courts, including itself, apart from the Supreme Court, the High Court of Justice functions both as a civil court of first instance and a criminal and civil appellate court for cases from the subordinate courts. It consists of three divisions, the Queens Bench, the Chancery and the Family divisions, the divisions of the High Court are not separate courts, but have somewhat separate procedures and practices adapted to their purposes. Although particular kinds of cases will be assigned to each depending on their subject matter. However, beginning proceedings in the division may result in a costs penalty. The Crown Court is a court of both original and appellate jurisdiction which in addition handles a limited amount of civil business both at first instance and on appeal. It was established by the Courts Act 1971 and it replaced the assizes whereby High Court judges would periodically travel around the country hearing cases, and quarter sessions which were periodic county courts. The Old Bailey is the name of Londons most famous criminal court. Its official name is the Central Criminal Court, the Crown Court also hears appeals from magistrates courts. The Crown Court is a court in respect of the other work it undertakes, viz. inter alia, appeals from the magistrates’ courts. They hear minor criminal cases, as well as certain licensing appeals, youth courts are run on similar lines to adult magistrates courts but deal with offenders aged between the ages of ten and seventeen inclusive. Youth courts are presided over by a specially trained subset of experienced adult magistrates or a district judge, youth magistrates have a wider catalogue of disposals available to them for dealing with young offenders and often hear more serious cases against youths
12.
Courts of Scotland
–
The civil, criminal and heraldic courts of Scotland are responsible for the administration of justice. They are constituted and governed by Scots law, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, a non-ministerial department of the Scottish Government, is responsible for the administration of the countrys courts and tribunals systems. The Court of Session is the civil court and the High Court of Justiciary is the supreme criminal court. The specialist system of Childrens Hearings handles the majority of cases involving allegations of criminal conduct involving persons under 16, the Court of the Lord Lyon is the heraldic court and the Scottish Land Court deals with agricultural and crofting issues. Defunct courts include the Court of Exchequer and the Admiralty Court, the United Kingdom does not have a single judicial system — England and Wales have one system, Scotland another, and Northern Ireland a third. The Military Court Service has jurisdiction over all members of the forces of the United Kingdom in relation to offences against military law. The Supreme Court was created on 1 October 2009 by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and it is the highest civil court of appeal for Scotland. It hears appeals from all the courts of the United Kingdom. Until the creation of the Supreme Court, ultimate appeal lay to the House of Lords, the cases may reach the Court as follows, The Attorney-General or other Law Officers may refer a bill from the devolved body to the Supreme Court. The litigants may appeal a case from certain superior courts, appellate courts may refer a case to the Supreme Court. Any court, if a Law Officer so desires, may refer a case to the Supreme Court, Law Officers may refer any issue not related to a bill or case to the Supreme Court. The Court of Session is the civil court. It is both a court of first instance and a court of appeal and sits exclusively in Parliament House in Edinburgh, the court of first instance is known as the Outer House, the court of appeal the Inner House. The Sheriff Appeal Court is a court with a jurisdiction over civil appeals from the Sheriff Courts. The Sheriff Court is the civil court, this sits locally. Any final decision of a Sheriff may be appealed against, there is a right of appeal in civil cases to the Sheriff Appeal Court, and, with permission, to the Court of Session. The High Court of Justiciary is the criminal court. The High Court is both a court of first instance and also a court of appeal, as a court of appeal, it sits only in Edinburgh
13.
Court system of Canada
–
Some of the courts are federal in nature while others are provincial or territorial. The Canadian constitution gives the government the exclusive right to legislate criminal law while the provinces have exclusive control over civil law. The provinces have jurisdiction over the administration of justice in their territory, almost all cases, whether criminal or civil, start in provincial courts and may be eventually appealed to higher level courts. The federal government appoints and pays for both the judges of the courts and the judges of the superior and appellate level courts of each province. The provincial governments are responsible for appointing judges of the provincial courts. Provincial administrative tribunals also comprise part of provincial courts and this intricate interweaving of federal and provincial powers is typical of the Canadian constitution. Very generally speaking, Canadas court system is a four-level hierarchy as shown below from highest to lowest in terms of legal authority. Each court is bound by the rulings of the courts above them, however, Civil courts in Quebec, in particular, are under no obligation to apply judicial precedent—the principle of stare decisis—which is the general rule elsewhere in Canada. This is because Quebecs civil law is codified, while civil law in the other nine provinces grew out of the English common law. There are two terms used in describing the Canadian court structure which can be confusing, and clear definitions are useful at the outset, the first is the term provincial court, which has two quite different meanings, depending on context. 92 of the Constitution Act,1867 and this head of power gives the Provinces the power to regulate. The Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal Jurisdiction, and including Procedure in Civil Matters in those Courts. All courts created by a Province, from the claims court or municipal by-law court. However, there is a limited meaning to the term. The Provincial Court of a province may also have a limited civil jurisdiction, over small claims. The exact scope of the jurisdiction of a Provincial Court will depend on the laws enacted by the particular province, Provincial Courts in this sense are courts of limited statutory jurisdiction, sometimes referred to as inferior courts. To distinguish between the two meanings of the term, capitalization is used, a reference to a provincial court normally is a reference to the broad meaning of the term, any court created by the Province. A reference to Provincial Court normally is referring to the court of limited statutory jurisdiction
14.
Crime
–
In ordinary language, a crime is an unlawful act punishable by a state or other authority. The term crime does not, in criminal law, have any simple and universally accepted definition. The most popular view is that crime is a created by law, in other words, something is a crime if declared as such by the relevant. One proposed definition is that a crime or offence is an act not only to some individual. Such acts are forbidden and punishable by law, the notion that acts such as murder, rape and theft are to be prohibited exists worldwide. What precisely is an offence is defined by criminal law of each country. While many have a catalogue of crimes called the criminal code, the state has the power to severely restrict ones liberty for committing a crime. In modern societies, there are procedures to which investigations and trials must adhere, usually, to be classified as a crime, the act of doing something criminal must – with certain exceptions – be accompanied by the intention to do something criminal. While every crime violates the law, not every violation of the law counts as a crime, breaches of private law are not automatically punished by the state, but can be enforced through civil procedure. With institutional and legal machinery at their disposal, agents of the State can compel populations to conform to codes, authorities employ various mechanisms to regulate certain behaviors in general. In addition, authorities provide remedies and sanctions, and collectively these constitute a criminal justice system, Legal sanctions vary widely in their severity, they may include incarceration of temporary character aimed at reforming the convict. Some jurisdictions have penal codes written to inflict permanent harsh punishments, legal mutilation, usually a natural person perpetrates a crime, but legal persons may also commit crimes. Conversely, at least under U. S. law, nonpersons such as animals cannot commit crimes, the sociologist Richard Quinney has written about the relationship between society and crime. When Quinney states crime is a phenomenon he envisages both how individuals conceive crime and how populations perceive it, based on societal norms. The word crime is derived from the Latin root cernō, meaning I decide, originally the Latin word crīmen meant charge or cry of distress. The Ancient Greek word krima, from which the Latin cognate derives, typically referred to a mistake or an offense against the community. In 13th century English crime meant sinfulness, according to etymonline. com and it was probably brought to England as Old French crimne, from Latin crimen. In Latin, crimen could have signified any one of the following, charge, indictment, accusation, crime, fault, the word may derive from the Latin cernere – to decide, to sift
15.
Alternatives to incarceration
–
An alternative to incarceration is any kind of punishment or treatment other than time in prison or jail that can be given to a person who is convicted of committing a crime. Alternatives can take the form of punishment, exile, fines, restorative justice, corporal punishment, transformative justice. The United States’ prison population topped 2 million inmates for the first time in history on June 30,2002, by this time, America’s jails held 1 in every 142 U. S. residents. Since 1997, there has been a 5. 4% increase in prison inmates, the prison abolition movement attempts to eliminate prisons and the prison system. Prison abolitionists see the prisons as a way to decrease crime. They also believe the modern criminal justice system to be racist, sexist, one of the many arguments made for prison abolition is that the majority of people accused of crime cannot afford to pay a lawyer. The Anarchist Black Cross was a key group involved in the abolition movement that still persists today. A variety of proposed alternatives to prisons arose from the abolition movement. The prison reform and alternatives to incarceration has been supported by the United Nations Office on Drugs. The UNODC highly encourages member nations to adopt alternatives to incarceration, dropping the traditional ways to punishment such as imprisonment, imprisonment often takes away the basic liberties of human rights as declared in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Many inmates in the U. S. prison system have voiced the inhumane conditions that they were subjected to during their time, for those who have experience sexual abuse, the obligatory search brings up traumatic experiences and episodes. Similar to this example, many inmates are subjected to unfair treatments, the socioeconomic situations of nations are thus greatly impacted. Mass incarceration has been found to decrease the economic circumstances of families. With the increase and spike of incarceration rates, many continue to fall below the official poverty rate. Statistics from a study of released inmates show that populations are finding difficulty to re-integrate back into the society and this is due in part from the overcrowding of jail cells and the high concentration of diseases and substance abuse. The environment that most of these inmates are exposed to is not an influence for motivation to change for the better. Rearrest rates in addition to newly convicted individuals, add on to the burden of taxpayers, financial circumstances are not the only factor affected when one is imprisoned. However, their conditions only continue to worsen after their time at penal institutions, due to the increased, overcrowded populations of prisons and the lack of medical personnels, many of the prisoners conditions deteriorate
16.
Curfew
–
A curfew is an order specifying a time during which certain regulations apply. The word curfew comes from the French phrase couvre-feu, which means fire cover and it was later adopted into Middle English as curfeu, which later became the modern curfew. An order issued by the authorities or military forces requiring everyone or certain people to be indoors at certain times. It can be imposed to maintain order, or suppress targeted groups. An order by the guardians of a teenager to return home by a specific time. This may apply daily, or vary with the day of the week, a daily requirement for guests to return to their hostel before a specified time, usually in the evening or night. In baseball, a time after which a game must end, for example, in the American League the curfew rule for many years decreed that no inning could begin after 1 am local time. In aeronautics, night flying restrictions may restrict aircraft operations over a period in the nighttime. Notable examples are the London airports of Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, in a few locations in the UK patrons of licensed premises may not enter after a curfew time. In Inverclyde for example this is set at 12,00 am. On 28 January 2011, and following the collapse of the police system, however, it was ignored by demonstrators who continued their sit-in in Tahrir Square. Concerned residents formed vigilante groups to defend their communities against looters. In defiance, the locals took to the streets during the curfew, organizing football tournaments and street festivals, prohibiting police, under Icelands Child Protection Act, children aged 12 and under may not be outdoors after 20,00 unless accompanied by an adult. Children aged 13 to 16 may not be outdoors after 22,00, unless on their way home from an event organized by a school. During the period 1 May to 1 September, children may be outdoors for two hours longer, children and teenagers that break curfew are taken to the local police station and police officers inform their parents to get them. The age limits stated here shall be based upon year of birth, if a parent cannot be reached, the child or teenager is taken to a shelter. The United Kingdoms 2003 Anti-Social Behaviour Act created zones that allow police from 9 PM to 6 AM to hold and escort home unaccompanied minors under the age of 16, whether badly behaved or not. Although hailed as a success, the High Court ruled in one case that the law did not give the police a power of arrest
