The American legal system
In order for you to understand how the American legal system works, you gotta peer into the minds of the founders for a bit and see what they saw.
The founders were steeped in history and saw all forms of oppression and power reach of governments, and they wanted to birth an exemplar to the world and go beyond the basic values of justice.
They had a dilemma to solve; how do we give power to the government to do its job while making sure that power is checked against the rights of the individual? the solution was to draft the constitution(1787)that gave the federal government 3 branches to check each other's work and was later followed by a ratification of the bill of rights in 1791(the 10 Ammendments) to ensures individual rights.
The Federal government branches into the legislative, which contains the senate and house of representatives; the executive, which includes the presidents and all law enforcement agencies like FBI; and the judicial which contains the federal courts(appeal,trial,district) and the supreme court(the supreme law of the land) where everything contested is brought to bear.
it is a brilliant system of checks and balances, but is it perfect?
Almost. when you separate the branches like that, it becomes overly complex, difficult for one "majority" to prevail, but also makes it hard to agree on things.
Let's take a detour and jump to the law and order(no pun intended) as we know it. We see people in court on television defending themselves, providing evidence, blah blah blah, lots of drama and intensity.. Turned out cases rarely make it to that stage in first place.
The law is there to protect society from future harms (deterrance) and provide retribution for people who caused that harm, but how does it work in real life? A hypothetical is in order. Someone tries to tarnish your professional reputation by spreading false stories about you, by defaming you. You're enraged, what do you do? you call a lawyer? or do you try to talk to the guy about it first? but what kind of offense did he do, legally speaking? what if that's part of his constitutional right to speak his mind? is this worth going to court for?
While you're thinking about these questions, let's step back a bit, and think of the kind of legal offenses the law recognizes and what they mean.
Let's imagine how a lawyer would think. A lawyer has to have the constitution on one side of his mind as a backdrop for the issue at hand, and the offense committed on the other side. Hmm, okay, so this guy defamed someone; he might be liable for tort; what was tort again? tort is When the action of someone incur damages on others, so yeah? is this a Constitutional issue? was he being discriminated against, or deprived of his right to speak or any of his penumbral rights? Oh man, I hope my plaintiff is cool to hang out with. Alright, you've got something to say, I will hand you the mic back. Thanks, sorry to cut you off but I was gonna say, speaking of the Constitution, it is notable, for me at least, how there had to be a 14th amendment added to make sure that the state constitution comply with the federal constitution, thereby making sure the rights of the individual are protected at any state.
In addition to constitutional and tort issues, we have property law issues which concerns not the absolute ownership of property but the relationship between the property and other people. In property law, ownership is a bundle of rights, and any right might be tied to another person or entity in the form of say, interest or easement. that's why things get complicated.
The fourth issues relate to contracts. Contract law makes sure that a deal is a deal and people are compensated when a breach occurs. of course, there are exceptions and decisions are made by the court in a way that's reasonable enough.
Next, we have Criminal law that concerns murders, homicides, robbery, manslaughter etc. Criminal law takes into account intention and outcome, with negligence, and recklessness being on the spectrum of liability. it also asks what would the reasonable person do? Criminal law emphasizes the importance of not exploiting the defendant though interrogation that leads to self incrimination and making sure they know their Miranda rights beforehand so as not to invalidate subsequent evidences against them. There are always exceptions, of course. Precedent and the culture of law influence things dramatically. Now, how does this criminal process work, what is criminal procedure?
Unlike civil cases(tort, property, contract) where there is a plaintiff and a defendant, in criminal law, the state or official party sues on behalf of society. Things sound tough for the defendant. they both appoint lawyers to represent them. lawyers start discovery by collecting info from both parties to make a case. If the judge thinks that it's worth a trial, they appoint a jury of common people with no ties to the case whatsoever to help them make a decision, that's called a jury trial, but there are also instances where only the judge makes the last decision (bench trial).they reach a adjudication (outcome) and then a sentence.
the system has to be efficient, so it doesn't flood with cases, That's why only 10% of cases make it to trial. Most of the cases are solved through negotiation between the parties, acquittals, plea bargains and other arrangements. The defendant has a right to appeal a court decision to the appellate court, at the second level, but that also has to be efficient; the error has to be worthy of consideration. You can still take your case to an even a higher court, the highest, the supreme court if the issue is even more complicated, think Roe v. wade. but in this case the supreme court is the one to decide what case to take.
Learning a bit about the legal system has made me more attuned to how thoroughly the founders thought about getting things right when it comes to the thriving of the individual while also making sure that the law is adhered to. I became more aware of how complicated some cases might be and the infinite number of things to consider while making a court decision; a decision that relies heavily on decisions that came before it in similar cases while also trying to take into account the nuances of the individual case. It is such a fascinating thing this constitution. Even more fascinating is the ability of judges to interpret it to the best of their knowledge in a way that fits the times. I wonder what the judges of 100 years in the future would think of the errors we made.