Category: Court

In this essay, I will critically discuss the court system of England and Wales, including the historical context and significant developments as well as the different perspectives of the court system. I will also compare England and Wales court system to others in the world and I will argue that the England and Wales court system is the most successful system.

A court is a place where trials and legal cases take place, it is the place where decisions are made by the judges and where witnesses are cross-examined. (Cambridge Dictionary, 2019) The court system has been around for many years but it has been developing for more than 1000 years and it is one of the most important elements in the criminal justice system. (Judiciary.UK, 2019a) In the court evidence that has been gathered is measured, in order to determine if the defendant is guilty or not guilty. (Judiciary. UK, 2019b)

The court system consists of many different types of courts such as the magistrate’s court, the crown court, the court of appeal, the high court, the supreme court and many more. (Judiciary.UK, 2019b) All these different courts deal with the different types of cases, the magistrate court deals with summary offences these are the offences that are not that serious such as motoring and minor assaults, therefore the defendant is not permitted to trail by the jury. The magistrate also deals with either-way offences these are offences such as thefts, as the name states these cases can either be dealt at the magistrate by a judge only or at the crown court by the judge and jury. Finally, an indictable-only offence is an offence such as murder, rape, manslaughter and others. These types of cases are very serious therefore they need to be heard at the crown court. (Judiciary.UK, 2019b) The crown court is where serious offences are dealt with, such as cases sent for trial from the magistrates, either-way offences and appeals against decisions of the magistrates’ court. Serious cases are sent to the crown court because that is where stronger punishments can be given to the offenders. (Judiciary. UK, 2019c)

The court system plays a significant role in the criminal justice system as it helps determine whether an offender is guilty or not guilty. Mostly, all criminal cases start at a magistrate court and about 95 per cent of these cases will usually end in the magistrate’s courts. (Brightknowledge.org, 2019) In the magistrate court if a defendant has been entered for a plea and later the defendant is found to be guilty, then the judge can enforce a prison sentence for up to six months or a penalty of up to £5,000. (Cps.gov.uk, 2013)

In a courtroom there are many roles that have different responsibilities; the magistrate is the person who decides if someone is guilty or not. The magistrate’s clerk is responsible for recording all evidence that is shown at the court hearing. The defendant, this is an individual that has been accused of committing the crime. There is an associate judge who is responsible for assisting the judge in any issues that arise before or after a trial. Barristers are also at the courtroom and they present the defence or prosecution case in court. A judge and jury of 12 have the responsibility to hear cases and make decision. (leesa, 2014) witnesses are also present at the courtroom and they are responsible to give testimony about uncertain facts in the case. A court reporter is responsible for writing a summary of the trial. A court deputy is always present at a trial and they are responsible for marking exhibits and ensuring that the trial is running smoothly and effectively. (B. A, 2019)

Justice in 1066 (where it was the Norman invasion and the period of the Anglo-Saxons) was a combination of the local and royal government. The lord or one of his stewards had control over the local courts and the king’s court (the Curia Regis) was controlled by the king himself. (History, 2013) Trails in those days were unpleasant and the most disturbing, this was because the accused had to hold a hot bar of iron in their bare hands and they had to pull out a stone from boiling water or something as dreadful as that. These punishments were also used to determine if the accused is guilty or not guilty of the crime they committed, so after the punishment was given and after a few days their hand began to heal they would believe that God is on their side and that would prove they were innocent, therefore there were an unknown number of not guilty decisions recorded. In those days they had a lot of peculiar ways to determine if someone is guilty or not; this carried on until the end of the 12th century. (History, 2013) In 1087-1100 William II got rid of the trial by ordeal as it was not useful and people were getting punished for crimes they didn’t commit and others were getting away for crimes they did commit, this was condemned by the church in 1216.

In the 12th century, the first judge was court officials who had the skill of advising the king on the settlement of disputes. When Henry II come into a rule (1154-1189) he developed a jury to settle arguments over ownership of lands, the jury consisted of 12 local knights. There were also 18 judges in the whole country. (Mason, 2016) A declaration was issued by Henry at the Assize of Clarendon in 1166, this declaration commanded the non-kings bench judges who were remaining to travel the country and deal with cases. This system was known as the ‘Assize system’ because some judges would sit in London while the others travelled the country, this system lasted till 1971. In 1285 the magistrate’s court came into place during the period of Edward I. From that point and still continuing till this day, the magistrate court deals with different small offence cases.

In 1830 courts evolved rapidly through legislation and structure. The court of the great session was eliminated and welsh counties and Chester were put into the general circuit system. The new central criminal court stared a short while after, joining the administration of justice in London and surrounding areas. Judges of the central criminal court were granted permission to deals with cases outside the court’s jurisdiction, this ensured a fair trial. The county courts were developed under the county courts act 1846 to deal with civil cases. (Judiciary. UK, 2019d)

In 1873 a new act was passed to combine the common law and equity; this act was known as the Judicature act 1873. This act ensured that all courts could administrate both equity and common law. This act also created the high court and court of appeal, this ensured the right of appeal in civil cases to the court of appeal, on the other hand, criminal appeals were still restricted until the creation of a court of criminal appeal, this court was created under the criminal appeal act 1907. (Judiciary. UK, 2019d) Quarter sessions trace back to 1327 and they were established by Edward III. These sessions were held by the justice of the peace, the purpose of these sessions was to hear criminal offences and also hear civil and criminal appeals, these sessions only met four times a year. However, in 1791 the quarter session was abolished under the courts’ act 1971 and a new system was put into place, it was known as the crown court. (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2018)

In the 18th and 19th-century people were entered into a system if they were charged for a criminal offence in London. When the suspects were entered into this system, they had to go through a long phase where decisions were made and according to those decisions the suspect would either be removed from the system entirely or they would go deeper into the system and be taken into many paths that lead to different decisions. The criminal courts in the 18th and 19th century consisted of different courts that were spread across different stages. (Ward, 2016) The first stage was the summary justice this is where the justice of the peace would conduct a summary hearing and petty sessions under the summary jurisdictions. This was the stage where minor offences would be dealt with by a single or a pair of justices, criminals who were sentenced under the summary justice would have been either punished with a fine, whipping or commitment to the house of correction. The second stage was known as the “session of peace” this is where more serious offences and felonies took place. In London and Middlesex sessions were held 8 times a year separately, 4 times a year in Westminster. In these sessions, the justice of peace heard cases of those who were committed to prison for jury trails. The third level was known as old Baily, in this type of court major offences which were punishable by death were judged here, they met 8 times a year until 1834 when the central criminal court act changed, they also changed the number of times they met a year to 10 to 12 each year. Finally, the highest level of courts was known as the King’s/Queen’s Bench, in this court, they heard an insignificant number of serious cases. This court acted as a review for all the other courts. (Ward, 2016)

There were many significant developments that helped to organise the UK courts system. Henry II established the common law in 1154 by developing a court system that was common to the country this was done by removing local control and establishing a jury system of citizens who had taken an oath to investigate criminal charges and civil claims, (The open university, 2013) this development still exist till today and has a huge impact on the system for example, they have the responsibility of helping the judge decide if the offender is guilty or not guilty, using the facts and evidence of the case.

One more key development that took place was in 1873, when the old higher courts were obliterated and new courts were established under the judicature acts of 1873, these new courts were known as the supreme court of judicature and consisting of a high court of justice and the court of appeal. The supreme court of judicature was made by combining the court of chancery, the court of queen’s/king’s bench, the court of common pleas, the court of Exchequer, the high court of admiralty, the court of probate and the court of divorce and matrimonial causes. The objective of the act was to join the historically divides courts of common law and equity. Another purpose of this was to reduce the disorder and the resulting inefficiency of courts that had particular powers of the legal control throughout England and wales. The act of 1873 is known as the first step towards modernizing the court system. (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2016)

In 1971 there were many significant changes to the court system of England and wales. The crown court was established under the courts’ act of 1971, this act also introduced the posts of circuit judges and recorders and abolished the assize and quarter sessions in order to make way for the new system that would run throughout the UK, this development would bring greater efficiency to the court hearing. The purpose of this change was to reform and modernise the court system of England and wales. (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2016b)

The constitutional reform act 2005 also brought many fundamental changes to the court system of the United Kingdom, these changes helped to make the court system better and more organised. First of all, this act established the supreme court, the aim of this was to accomplish a clear severance of power amongst the legislature and the judiciary, this was because before the highest court was the Appellate committee of the house of lords and the lord chancellor, therefore appeals would be subject to political influence. The supreme court now has its own building on the other side of parliament square separate from the parliament. Eleven of the twelve supreme court justices were recruited from the earlier top judges (the “law lords”) when the supreme court was formed. They can’t sit or vote in the House of lords even though they bear their names. (Heinonline.org, 2018)

Many people have different perspectives of the England and Wales court system. The ministry of justice believes that the court’s system is not flexible enough, for example, the Magistrate courts and the crown deal with different levels of criminal offences and this minimises the efficiency of the services. (Transforming our justice system: summary of reforms and consultation, 2016) A criminal barrister who serves as a defence lawyer and judge, argues in a newspaper interview that our legal system is reaching a turning point and that support and change is urgently needed. (Summers, 2018)

According to research, A minority of the British public do not trust the court system, they feel unsatisfied by the way it works. More than half of Britain’s public says that the court system of England and Wales is unfair and inaccessible, this shows that some people are unhappy of the way the court system works and they feel that all their decisions are not reasonable. On the other hand, the rest of the British public believe that the court system is fair and transparent, this means that they feel that the court system is doing enough to satisfy the public and all the decisions they make are fair. (New Law Journal, 2015)

On the other hand, there are many good aspects of the England and Wales court system, most people feel that the court system is one of the best in the world because of how it deals with different cases. Some people believe that England and Wales have a powerful and incorruptible court system, this shows that the people have trust in the court system and they have respect for the court system. (Legal UK, n.d.)

Another positive characteristic of England and wales court system is that it is well structured, this means that the general public feels that the way different courts deal with different cases is effective and time-efficient for example, the magistrate court deals with the small offences and that leaves the crown court to deal with the more serious offences. (Thomas Cooper LLP, 2017)

There is a well-known difference in the England and Wales court system compared to other court systems around the world. The jury system is one of the biggest differences that make the England and wales court system unique, this is because the use of juries in the United Kingdom is seen as an important check on the power of government and as a means of incorporating law into the community. Compared to other countries, for example, in France the jury and the judge sit together in order to judge if someone is guilty or not guilty and in other countries there are no jury or their decision doesn’t matter, therefore decisions are then completely down to a judge or a group of judges. However, in England and Wales, there are arguments regarding juries indicate that they may not have the knowledge to understand the complicated issues they face and may be affected by their own biases. (Oxford Summer School from Oxford Royale Academy, 2016) There are other differences concerning the jury: the Scottish jury has 15 members rather than 12 and makes a decision by only a simple majority. (Evans, 2019)

Finally, the court system of the United Kingdom remains one of the most significant components of the criminal justice system because it has been developing for more than one thousand years. In the 1066’s the court system of England and Wales was not very well-organized and pleasant because of the way the court system worked, for example, when an induvial had committed a crime they were then sent to one of the courts, where they would go through to be punished by the authority of the court, punishments would have differed depending on the crime committed by the induvial and those punishments were cruel and horrible. Additional, in the past the court system was not very fair as of how they dealt with different cases, because the people of innocence were dealt with unethically for the reason that they believed that if your body was healed from the dreadful punishment that they were sentenced to, then you were found not guilty. Though, if your body did not restore itself then you were found guilty. Throughout its history, the court system started to develop gradually from its harsh methods of punishing offenders.

Progressively, the structure of the court system also started to take shape and started to modernise, this was done by many changes to the legislation and different courts being established. The courts act 1971 helped to modernise England and wales court system by creating a crown court for serious offences. Additionally, the judicature act of 1873, also established the supreme court in order to join the common law and equity courts that were historically separated and to ensure that only one power had legal control over the courts of England and Wales. All these changes have had substantial impacts on the England and Wales court system because it has helped to make the court system on of the greatest in the world as well as making it organised, without a stable court system we wouldn’t have trials that would be reasonable according to the felony committed by the offender, this means that criminals will not be judged for the crime committed therefore they would be walking free and innocent people would have to suffer for the wrongdoings of someone else, this will have an impact on the society as they would not feel safe in their own homes.

1. Introduction:-

The law of crimes has been known to us through all ages of civilization. It is in fact as old as our civilization. Whenever men and women formed into an organized society, the need for a criminal law has always been felt. In primitive society, there was no organization in society. They lived in the nature. Self preservation is the first instinct of nature. Thus they only knew how to protect themselves, i.e., self protection. Later on it was known as hunter age.

After that family comes as a unit. The head of the family was known as the king of the family, the law giver, judge and priest. It was known as patriarchal system, the first known government to the history, the power of the father in these families is absolute, and he could even put to death any of his children.

But the head of the family had no jurisdiction beyond his own family, so if conflict arises between two families, then who will settle? Therefore, it became necessary to evolve some device for bringing several families together, this was done by development of clan system, (a union of various families) and from this the concept of family came.

The above account shows that from individual to family and from family to state was the evolution of ancient society. Thus, how the necessity of criminal law rose in primitive society can be illustrated through the following diagram:-

Maine in his ancient law has observed that the penal law of ancient communities is not the law of crime; it is the law of wrong or to use the proceeding against the wrong or to use the English technical word of Tort. The person injured proceeds against the wrong doer by an ordinary civil action and recover compensation in the shape of pecuniary damages, if he succeeds.

According to Diamond, the courts appear in the first and second agricultural grades of the society in the primitive stages. In these courts the very limited acts of the members of the society were noticed and punished. There is no systematic trial also with regard to these anti-social acts, nor is there any organized public action against him. Some person or persons are made responsible for meeting out appropriate punishment for the offences but the punishment was not dealt with immediately, it is often delayed and sometimes even the offender escaped unharmed.

Era of code began with the code of Hammurabi of 1914 B.C., the volume criminal law remains very small. Under the codes, greater attention was paid to the direction of civil law. Of course, some anti-social acts were looked upon as crimes, especially those which involved disloyalty or insult to the king, the punishment for which was given by the king himself.

In the primitive stage, the damage was awarded to the victim on the basis of vengeance. Lex Talionis was the rule. If the offender caught red handed, he was given a more severe punishment than one who was detected afterwards.

The history of primitive criminal law may be said to have passed through four stages:-

1. In the initial stage, we find ,at the idea of individual injury to collective injury,
2. In the second stage, when crimes are multiplied the state is compelled to delegate its power to particular commissions and not individual persons wronged.
3. In the third stage, permanent commissions were appointed,
4. This permanent commission has been developed later on as criminal courts of justice.

No account of the history of criminal law in the primitive stage will be completed unless we also trace the development of the law of homicide. Homicide for a very long time remained in many aspects a civil wrong. However, intentional homicide was punished by death and confiscation of goods, while involuntary homicide was punished by banishment for a limited period.

In the Hebrew Code, we find that a capital punishment was provided for homicide. Pecuniary compensation was provided in the Hittite Code. [footnoteRef:2] [2: R.C.Nigam, Jurisprudence of Justice Delivery System.]

According to Wikipedia, criminal justice system is the system of practices and institutions of governments of governments directed at upholding social control, deterring and mitigating crime, or sanctioning those who violate laws with criminal penalties and rehabilitation efforts. Those accused of crime have some protections against abuse of investigatory and prosecution powers.

2. Objectives of criminal justice system:-

The main objectives of the criminal justice system can be categorized as follows:-

• To prevent to occurrence of crime,
• To punish the transgressors and the criminals,
• To rehabilitate the transgressors and the criminals,
• To compensate the victims as far as possible,
• To maintain law and order in the society,
• To deter the offenders from committing any criminal act in the future.

3. Development of criminal law in Indian sub-continent:-

The development of criminal law in India can be grouped into three main groups, such as, ancient India, Medieval Age and Indian Penal Code.

• A. The ancient India contains the following:-
  • 1. Pre – historic period (primitive societies),
  • 2. Development of criminal law in India in-
• A. Vedic Civilization( Aryan Culture),
  • · Early Vedic Period (1500-1000B.C.)
  • · Later Vedic Period (1000-500 B.C.
• B. The Epic Age (1000-700B.C.)
• C. Mauryan Administration (324-232 B.C.)
• D. Satavahana Period (235 B.C.-220 A.D.)
• E. Gupta Dynasty (300-600 A.D.)
• F. Harsha : classical age of ancient India (606-60)
• G. Chola (South India) Dynasty (4th -3rd century B.C.)
• H. Pallavas of Knachi.
• I. Chalukyas of Badami.
• B.Medieval Age:- (The advent of Islam into India)
  • I. Delhi sultanate (1206-1526 A.D.)
  • II. Vijayanagar Empire (1336-1605 A.D.)
  • III. Sher Shah- The Sur Dynasty (1540-1545 A.D.)
  • IV. Judicial Administration under the Mughals (1526-1857 A.D.)
  • V. The Marthas (the rule of Shivaji and Peshwa: 1674-80 A.D.)
• C. Modern India:- (Imperial rule in India)
  • I. Administrative reforms of some important Viceroys.
    • i. Lord Canning (1858-1862)
    • ii. Lord Lytton (1876-1880)
    • iii. Lord Ripon (1880-84)
    • iv. Lord Curzon (1899-1905).
  • II. The judiciary system and law courts under the rule of East India Company.
  • III. Judicial reforms under Crown Government.
  • IV. Judicial reforms introducing by Governor Generals:
    • a) Warren Hastings (1732-1818)
    • b) Charles Marquis Cornwallis (1738-1805)
    • c) Lord William Bentinck (1774-1839)

V. Indian Penal Code.

Jurisprudence of justice delivery system in ancient India:-

The king administered justice and wielded the rod of punishment. Among the crimes enumerated was theft, robbery, adultery, incest, abduction, killing of man. The killing of cow, slaying of Brahmana, drinking intoxicating liquor, treachery, etc. were punishable by death. Petty offences were left to ‘village judges’. For instance, the eye-witness was more important than the informer. The punishments for crimes were rather severe. The law was also very clear on the question of inheritance of property, ownership of land etc. the property was to be inherited by some alone. The daughter could inherit it only if she was the only child or there were no male issues.[footnoteRef:3] [3: K.N.Khurana, Ancient India, p, 37.]

The king was the fountain head of justice. No partiality was done while making a judgment. The study of the epics reveals that the culprits and accused were punished severely. There is a reference of fire-test in the Ramayana. Sita had to face the fire-ordeal in order to prove her chastity. Thus, the members of the royal family also were not exempted from receiving punishment in case of any crime or fault.[footnoteRef:4] [4: S.R.Myneni, Indian history, p.33.]

A. Ancient India

Hindu period:-

The germ of criminal jurisprudence came into existence in India at the time of Manu. He gave a comprehensive code which contains not only the ordinances relating to law, but is a complete digest of the then prevailing religion, philosophy and customs practiced by the people. Manu has recognized assault, bettry, theft, robbery, false evidence, slander, and libel, criminal breach of trust, adultery, gambling and homicides as crimes. These are the principal offences against persons and property that occupy a prominent place in the Indian Penal Code. The king used to either dispense justice himself with the help of counselors or appoint judges and accessors for the administration of criminal justice. These precepts are excellent. However, the substantive criminal jurisprudence of Manu is not free from bias. According to him, the gravity of the offence varies with the caste and creed of the criminal and so thus the sentence. The protections given to Brahmins were paramount and they were placed above all others. Such discriminatory provisions are against the principles of natural justice.

During this period, there was no clear distinction between private and public wrongs. Murders and other homicides were regarded as private wrongs. The right to claim compensation was the rule of the day. A distinction was however, drawn between casual offenders and hardened criminals. Again, he made provisions for exemption from criminal liability. Where the act was done without any criminal intention or by mistake of fact or by consent or was the result of accident march on the lines provided in Chapter IV of Indian Penal Code. The right of Private Defense was fully developed during the Hindu Criminal jurisprudence. Kautilya’s Arthasastra [footnoteRef:5] contained an elaborate account of economic, political and legal administration in the 4th century B.C. It describes in detail procedure to be followed by courts for dispensation of justice, both civil and criminal.[footnoteRef:6] [5: The Arthasastra of Kautilya consisted of fifteen chapters, 380 shlokas and 4968 sutras and dealt with a wide variety of subjects like civil administration, criminal and civil justice system, taxation, revenues, foreign policy, war, defense, etc.] [6: Dr. N.V.Paranjape, Studies in Jurisprudence and Legal Theory, p.185]

B.Medieval India

Mohammedan Law period:-

The Muslim invaders also play a very significant role in the administration of criminal justice system in India. The advent of Islam into India is counted from 1206 A.D. to 1680 A. until the British took over the reign of the country. The Muslim legal system had its origin in the Koran, which is said to have been revealed by God to the Prophet. In Muslim law, the concepts of sin, crime, religion, moral and social obligation are blended in the concept of duty, which varied according to the relative importance of the subject matter. The administration of criminal justice was entrusted in the hands of kazis. The punishment was four fold, namely, kisa or retaliation, diyut or blood money, hadd or fixed punishment and tazir or syasa, discretionary or exemplary punishment.[footnoteRef:7] [7: Essays on the Indian Penal Code, Indian Law Institute,1962, pp1-32]

However, the notions of kazis about crime were no fixed and differed according to the purse and power of the culprits. As a result, there was no uniformity in the administration of criminal justice during the Muslim rule in India, and it was in a chaotic state. Important officers in Mughal Empire for Administration of Criminal Justice:-

There were many officers in the courts who held important offices under them. Some of them are as such-vakil, muhtasib, Qazl-ul-Quzat or Chief Qazi.

The punishments during Muslim period in India were very brutal. The jailers were supposed to be rough and tough towards the prisoners. Only deterrent and retributive theories were followed in that period. Reformation of offenders was not accepted in that period.

C.Modern India

Imperial rule India:-

The Muslim system of administration of criminal justice was in practice when the British took over the reign of the country. In the beginning, they engrafted the Muslim system of administration, but were faced with much difficulty. As a result the moffussil as well as the Presidency Courts gradually began to turn to the English law for guidance and help. However, in adopting the British system, each of the Presidency Courts followed an independent course of its own. The result was a chaotic mass of conflicting and contradictory decisions on similar points. The regulations passed by different presidencies differed widely in their scope and contained different provisions.

Thus the criminal law administered in the Presidency towns, came to be in practice, the English Criminal Law. In Bombay, Portuguese law first replaced the Mohammadan law. Then followed the company’s laws of 1670 and form that time the English criminal law was applied until, under a charter of 24th September 1726, the Mayor’s court was set up and the criminal law of England was authoritatively administered in that presidency.

In Madras and Calcutta criminal jurisdiction was originally exercised over the Indian inhabitants through the Zaminders. Apparently English criminal law was applied more and more extensively in these courts, as time went on, though in those towns there was no definite substitution of that law for the Mohammadan criminal law. In 1726 Mayor’s courts were established in Madras and Calcutta under the same charter as that which set up the similar court in Bombay. However, in adopting the British system, each of the presidency courts namely, Bombay, Calcutta and Madras followed an independent course of its own.

The East-India Company paid its attention towards the organization of system of justice as it had done in case of other brunches of administration. During British period, a model court system was established.

Formation of Indian Penal Code:-

In 1834, with Lord Macaulay as President, a law commission was formed for preparing a comprehensive penal code for India to bring about consistency and uniformity in criminal law. MacLeod, Anderson and Millet were commissioners of that commission. The commission submitted its report on 15 June, 1835, and the draft Penal Code was widely circulated in order to ascertain the views of judges, jurists, lawyers and others.

After a prolonged discussion and careful consideration, the draft penal code was approved by the legislative council and received the assent of governor general in council on October 6th, 1860; and the Indian Penal Code as stated earlier was brought into force on 1st January, 1962.

In the Indian Penal Code, a comprehensive piece of legislation, originally, had 23 chapters and 511 sections. However, in the course of time, 3 chapters:-

1. V-A :Criminal Conspiracy
2. IX-A : Offences relating to Elections, and
3. XXA: Cruelty by husband and relatives of husband.

-and a number of sections have been added numbering 550, and a few sections deleted. The Indian Penal Code embodies the General Penal Law of the country, and its sole authority on the general conditions of liability, the definitions of specific offences in the IPC, and the conditions of exemptions from criminal liability. Some crimes are cognizable and some are not.[footnoteRef:8] [8: K.D.Gaur, Criminal Law: cases and materials, p.3]

The criminal law amendment act 2013:-

The new Act has expressly recognized certain acts as offences which were dealt under related laws. These new offences like, acid attack (S. 326A, 326-B), sexual harassment (S. 354-A, 354-B), voyeurism (S. 354-C), stalking (S. 354-D) have been incorporated into the Indian Penal Code.

4. Observations:-

In view the importance of the subject matter, we observed that criminal justice system in contemporary time gives emphasis to:-

• Public interest litigation,
• Bail justice jurisprudence,
• Prison justice,
• Compensation to the victims, and
• Legal aid and legal services.

In India, the improvement of criminal justice system from ancient to present day can be observed through the following points:-

• Simplification of rules and procedures,
• Repealing of outdated laws,
• Criminal law amendment,
• Police as investigating agency,
• Judicial accountability,
• Appointment, promotion and transfer of judges,
• Average Judge-population ratio,
• Perjury and contempt of court,
• Efficient public prosecutors,
• Transparency of court proceedings,
• Time bound filling of vacant post in the judiciary.

5. Suggestions:-

Criminal justice system in India requires a strong second look in:-

1. Improvement in criminal investigation system: – the criminal investigation system needs higher standards of professionalism and it should be provided adequate logistic and technological support.
2. Investigators should not be over burdened with other duties: – Serious offences should be classified for purpose of specialized investigation by specially selected, trained and experienced investigators. They should not be burdened with other duties like security, maintenance of law and order etc, and should be entrusted exclusively with investigation of serious offences.
3. Introduction of modern technology: – The number of Forensic Science Institutions with modern technologies such as DNA finger printing technology should be enhanced. The system of plea-bargaining (as recommended by the Law Commissions of India in its Report) should be introduced as part of the process of decriminalization.
4. Public cooperation: – The police are increasingly losing the benefit of this asset of public confidence. Hard intelligence in investigations comes from public cooperation. If policemen are seen as violators of law themselves or if they abuse their powers for intimidation and extortion, public develop an attitude of revulsion and the onerous duties and responsibilities that the police shoulder become more onerous and difficult.
5. Review the statistics: – the statistics of police diary should be review frequently.

6. Conclusion:-

The protection of life (and also of property) emerged from the primitive societies. People submit themselves to government for the protection of their lives as a whole. The concept of criminal law is not a new one; it begins with concept of society. The administration of criminal justice system plays a significant role in social control as well as deterring and mitigating crime in society. Generally, criminal justice system consists of three main parts:-

1. Legislative (create laws),
2. Adjudication (courts), and
3. Corrections (jails, probation, prison and parole).[footnoteRef:9] [9: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice]

-in criminal justice system, these distinct agencies operate together.

After studying the historical background of administration of criminal justice system in India, we have seen that the administration of criminal justice system has been passed through various stages. Indian administration of criminal justice system has been influenced by mainly religions such as Hindu and Islam and western British concept. The combination of both eastern and western concepts of crime and criminal justice system helps to establish a common system of criminal justice in India in a peaceable way.

The study of the history of criminal justice system helps to modify and reaffirm the present administration of criminal justice system in India.

Reproductive justice rights are belief that everyone has the right to control their own fertility through access to birth control, abortion, and comprehensive sex education. In the United States we have had to fight to keep these rights, especially with Roe vs. Wade. Roe vs. Wade was when abortion was legalized across the United States in 1973 and protected by the 14th Amendment (A&E Television Networks, 2019). What started Roe vs. Wade was a young Texas woman who had grown up in difficult circumstances and had two children she had given up for adoption, now she needed options for unintended pregnancy and the only way she could get an abortion in Texas was if her life was in jeopardy (A&E Television Networks, 2019). She could travel to another country and obtain an abortion, of course that was outside of her budget (A&E Television Networks, 2019).

There were other women in her same situation that went in direction of unsafe, self -induced and what was called “back-alley” abortions because of not being able to have access to safe and legal abortion care (A&E Television Networks, 2019). However, she was referred to a couple of Texas attorneys that were willing to challenge the anti-abortion laws and in the court documents she became known as “Jane Roe” (A&E Television Networks, 2019). The lawsuit was filed and deemed to violate “a constitutional right to privacy” (A&E Television Networks, 2019). Then it was appealed and went to Supreme Court where seven to two decision in 1973, which provided that women had the right make a choice for abortion services within the first trimester, the government would control second trimester to protect the mother and third trimester to protect the fetus (A&E Television Networks, 2019). Since Roe vs. Wade we continue to have the government come against abortion services and those providers that perform the essential care for these patients.

The reason this topic was selected is because I work for Planned Parenthood as a Contact Center Manager. Working with our patients everyday and seeing how important it is for them to get their birth control, abortion appointments, well woman exams and much more. How would it be if they could not get those services and how their health might decline, because we are the only health care provider that some of our patients see on a yearly basis. Which can be scary if they would happen to have high blood pressure and not know it until they have come into one of our appointments and now, we can refer them to a primary care provider to assist with that. Another reason for this topic is we are into election season and this topic is hot and heavy on our radars.

When it comes to reproductive justice rights the two areas that really hold the courts up are abortion services and contraception (Hill, 2016). These two are so controversial, because some see them as political, moral instead of just healthcare (Hill, 2016). However, the Affordable Care Act was that employers were to cover essential health care services and some reproductive healthcare was included such as birth control, wellness exams etc. (Hill, 2016). Therefore, abortions and contraception has been looked at as more of “non-essential”, “therapeutic”, or “elective” (Hill, 2016). There were ways that employers could avoid providing contraception for their employees by claims of religious exemptions, an example which was Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (Hill, 2016).

The Trump Administration around August 2019 made it to where if an organization provides abortion care or refers patients for abortion care they are unable to receive federal funding from Title X. This is information that patients need to help them make good decisions about their care, their body, and their families. A doctor or any healthcare provider does not just come out and refer someone for abortion services, they ask what their plans are are moving forward with the information they have just received. If they are planning on parenting and carrying their pregnancy to term, wonderful then there are referrals given for that and any choice that is made otherwise that’s a different referral. Patients want to get correct information about their care and what options they have. Planned Parenthood did not continue to accept federal funds, because they decided they were not going to comply with the Trump Administration restrictions to not refer patients to get and provide abortion care. Dr. Wen in this article talks about when Planned Parenthood was going through the process of getting court decisions and before the ruling happened to stop the Trump Administration and then when the Supreme Court Ruling happened (Abbasi, 2019). Overall, there is a fight for reproductive justice rights in the United States and the lawsuits have been filed under the violation of the first amendment and the 14th amendments.

The law is the First Amendment, which protects the freedom of speech, religion, and the press. (A&E Television Networks, 2019). When dealing with reproductive health care the court system struggle and highly divided on constitutional rights (Hill, 2016). This is not a black or white subject and sometimes these get passed up because they are not seen as healthcare (Hill, 2016). Abortion and contraception are seen by the court system as something other than healthcare because of targeted laws and regulations (Hill, 2016).

References

1. A&E Television Networks. (2019, September 25). First Amendment. Retrieved from History: https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/first-amendment
2. A&E Television Networks. (2019, 05 15). Roe v. Wade. Retrieved from History: https://www.history.com/topics/womens-rights/roe-v-wade
3. Abbasi, J. (2019). New Planned Parenthood President: No Politics in the Exam Room. Journal of the American Medical Association, 3.
4. Hill, B. J. (2016). The First Amendment and the Politics of Reproductive Health Care. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 43.

Chosen Topics:

1. Appointment of Judges
2. Due Process
3. Mandatory Sentencing

1. Appointment of Judges

The process of appointing heads of jurisdiction has been the topic of a public debate within recent years. The Judicial Conference (2015 pvi) outlines that the Executive government is responsible for such appointments, obligated by the parliament who is ultimately selected by the electorates. Affectively this would suggest that a generalised political view at the time decides which individual is appointed. It is the purpose of the executive government to maintain the public’s interest while supporting institutional judiciary independence. Allsop (2012) states this independence is a requirement central to the rule of law (p. 440) and furthermore, it is core to our democratic government system.

Various States and Territories have different applications when selecting candidates, in the past, the protocols of this application have not been clear. According to the Judicial Conference (2015, p. 39) in 2010, the then Attorney General of Victoria introduced reforms for the purpose of making this process more transparent. One of the reforms was to advertise the expressions of interests. This reform can be seen on the Justice Victoria website, which currently states “the Attorney General seeks expressions of interest from qualified persons for appointment to the Supreme, Country and Magistrates Courts of Victoria…” It is advertisements like this which is current practise for most Australian States and Territories, although different mediums may be used. What is interesting to note, no expressions of interest are used for the federal Court.

In addition to this reform, a publication of the selection criteria was introduced. The framework on which a person might be selected is referred to the Judicial College of Victoria website, which discuss requirements of knowledge, skills, behaviours and attitudes are expected for the judicial role (2008 p. 1). It is this framework which aids the development that a judge may aspire to. These include abilities in technical skills, authoritative communication, decision making, efficiency, professionalism and management in leadership (Judicial College 2008, p. 3). Further educational programs are offered at the Judicial College however, it remains unclear if an appointed judge is required to complete these programs.

To insure the successfulness of the appointed judge, a lengthy legal career as a barrister, solicitor or legal academic is expected and necessary. This career length varies by different sources, some outline 5 years while others state 8 years. Because Judicial appointment is based on merit (Evans and Williams, 2008, p. 297) another reform, made in 2010 was to include a wider range of consultations before appointing a successful candidate. The Victorian Bar, the Law Institute of Victoria and Victoria Legal Aid were some of the associations included in deliberating over a potential judge. Although these consultations are common across Australia’s States and Territories, they can be general and informal in practice (Judicial Conference 2015, p. x).

When a judge is appointed, an oath is preformed affirming their professional conduct. Those appointed are generally aged fifty years or older although, a person will not be appointed in Victoria once the age of seventy is attained. It is suggested by Allsop (2012 p. 441) that the built up of knowledge from an experienced career allows a newly appointed judge to begin their role immediately

2. Due Process

The underlying nature of due process, is established legal rules and regulations that protect and secure human rights. It is these rules and regulations that are particularly paramount to provide a neutral and impartial legal system, that all individuals are seen equal within the law. According to White and Perrone (2005, p.81) this is the premise of what our legal institutions are formulated upon. In Australia, it is ingrained traditions and conventions of common law that preserve the act of due process.

The role of due process ensures the individual access to a fair trial and no judgement is pressed without adequate hearing. In Australia, there are a number of essential elements that maintain due process. Firstly, Notice must be given, Churches (2015 p. 28) state that the courts or executive arm is required to give notice of any allegations. This can allow ample time for the defendant to conduct a defence. Secondly, the requirement of transparency insures an open access to court, this allows the public to feel informed whilst providing a visual concept of justice. There is also a tendency that transparency may in fact limit the action of a fair trial. It is issues of biases and prejudices that could allow ‘in camera’ hearing. This is further supported by McLachlin (2003 p. 4) who acknowledges the core values of open court can be limited, due to protection of privacy rights and sensitive information. An additional element to due process is the extensive rules and guidelines which determine the use of evidence. The evidence collected is subject to cross examination of the opposing party, this is where any objections can be expressed.

During the trial, impartiality of the judiciary can be seen as the foundational core value (Anlue and Mack 2017 p. 21). It is in the desire that no underlying ties or connections occur within the judiciary to that of the trial. For existing connection would compromise the process of a fair hearing, undermining the right of due process. Another element of due process involves cases which require a jury. Bronitt and Hogg (2003 p. 2) states the historical values of juries, safeguard personal liberties against the ruling government. It is the verdict that rests within these ordinary citizens, who can often reflect community values offering a form of ‘natural’ justice. At times, a conviction can often lead to disputes. In this occurrence avenues of appeal to higher courts can review any convictions, this allows the accused to raise any concerns or introduce further evidence. This could be seen as a safety net for individual rights, if a fair trial is not achieved. Furthermore, concepts of due process can be observed in the importance of adequate legal representation. However, in Australia issues with restrictions to legal representation has recently been a topic of debate. Lastly, it is understood that a core concept to due process is the notion of human rights. It is the application of habeas corpus, being brought before the court, which acts as a visual aid, securing personal liberties.

Collectively it is these ingrained legal practices that help maintain a fair and fluid application of due process which protect and maintain human rights within the law.

3. Mandatory Sentencing

Mandatory sentencing has drawn attention as an interesting topic of debate. Although this debate maybe recent, Roche (1999 p. 1) and Morgan (1999 p .267) confirm that during the eighteenth and nineteenth century mandatory sentencing was applied to various offences. However, such sentencing strategies were predominantly discarded, making way for discretionary conviction practices.

Mandatory sentencing is implemented throughout Australia and is widely applied to different criminal offences. There are few crimes that carry this practice, in general it is crimes that are serious in nature. Here in Victoria, under the Sentencing Act 1991 gross violence offences will incur this application. Furthermore, under the Commonwealth Migration Act 1958, people smuggling crimes will also be sentenced under these guidelines (Cowdery 2014 p.3).

The practice of mandatory sentencing, is the application of fixed penalties placed upon certain criminal offences. These penalties only imply the type of sanctions, but not the length of the sentence. Often, mandatory sentencing is used in conjunction with mandatory minimum sentencing. This is a minimum sanction which must be impose upon the offender by the courts. Once the defendant has been found guilty of a crime that holds the sanction of mandatory sentencing, the courts then have a limited amount of discretionary power (Hoel and Gelb 2008 p. 7). As a result, the imposed sentence must reside within the statutory range. For example, in Victoria an individual found guilty of manslaughter in circumstances of gross violence, the mandatory penalty must be incarceration. This crime will also incur a mandatory minimum sentence length of 10 years’ non-parole period (Sentencing Advisory Council).

Mandatory sentencing was formally introduced by the legislative government. Many scholars including Goldflam and Hunyor (1999 p. 212) state it arose from tough on crime election campaigns. However, due to the separation of government powers, it is the judiciary which ultimately interprets these laws and imposes the punishment upon guilty offenders.

According to Hoel and Gelb (2008 p. 1) the purpose of mandatory sentencing aims to improve public confidence in the courts, providing sentencing that reflect community views. It is the sentence that acts as punishment, providing the public’s perception of crime and justice. Additionally, it is mandatory sentencing which can be viewed as a public response to perceived problems within the criminal justice system.

There are three principals which underpin the justification to mandatory sentencing. Firstly, the implement of fixed punishment addresses the consistency of sentences. This is based on the idea that consistency offers fair and just outcomes to all the individuals who commit the same offence. Secondly, mandatory sentencing generally imposes sentences of incapacitation and recently, diversionary programs for the youth. The intent here, is to reduce further incidences of criminal offences increasing community safety. Lastly mandatory sentencing aims to encourage the notion of deterrence. This is based on the understanding that fixed punishment will discouraged criminal activity.

It is understood that mandatory sentencing was introduced to effectively apply proportionate and consistence sentences. However, it is important to note that many professionals have raised issues and concerns with the use of mandatory practices. It remains for now, a sentencing method within the Australian courts.

References

1. Allsop, J. (2012). Continuing judicial education: the Australian experience. Judicial review, 10(4), 439454. Retrieved from https://search-informit-com-au.ezproxy.federation.edu.au/fullText;dn=20122169;res=AGISPT
2. Anlue, S., & Mack, K. (2017). Impartiality and emotion in judicial work. Judicial Officers Bulletin, 29(3). Retrieved from https://search-informit-com-au.ezproxy.federation.edu.au/fullText;dn=770117778832600;res=IELHSS
3. Bronitt, S., & Hogg, R. (2003). The role and future of the jury in the Australian legal system: The 21st century jury: The rhetoric and the reality. Faculty of Law Australian National University, 12(2). Retrieved from https://search-informit-com-au.ezproxy.federation.edu.au/fullText;dn=200308401;res=IELAPA
4. Churches, S. (2015). Western Culture and the open fair hearing concept in the common law: How safe is natural justice in the twenty-first century Britain and Australia. The Chinese Journal of Comparative Law, 3(1), 2846. doi: 10.1093/cjcl/cxu020
5. Cowdery, N. (2014, May 15). Mandatory sentencing [Speech script]. Retrieved from https://search-informit-com-au.ezproxy.federation.edu.au/fullText;dn=109356315527541;res=IELAPA
6. Evans, S., & Williams, J. (2008). Appointing Australian judges: A new model. Sydney law review, 30(2), 295327. Retrieved from https://search-informit-com-au.ezproxy.federation.edu.au/fullText;dn=20083200;res=AGISPT
7. Hoel, A. Gelb, K. (2008). Sentencing matters: Mandatory report. Retrieved from https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Mandatory%20Sentencing%20Sentencing%20Matters%20Research%20Paper.pdf
8. Hunyor, J., Goldflam, R. (1999) Mandatory sentencing and the concentration of powers. Alternative Law Journal, 24(5), 211215. Retrieved from https://search-informit-com-au.ezproxy.federation.edu.au/fullText;dn=19994899;res=AGISPT
9. Judicial College of Victoria. (2009, November 20). Framework of judicial abilities and qualities. Retrieved from http://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/judicial-education/framework-judicial-abilities-and-qualities
10. Judicial College of Victoria. (2008). Framework of judicial abilities and qualities for Victorian judicial officers. Retrieved from http://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/sites/default/files/2009JCVFramework-JCVsite_0.pdf
11. Judicial Conference of Australia. (2015). Judicial Appointments a comparative study. Retrieved from https://www.jca.asn.au/jca-papers-reports-submissions/
12. McLachlin, B. (2003). Courts, Transparency and the public confidence – to the better administration of justice. Deakin Law Review, 8(1), 111. Retrieved from https://search-informit-com-au.ezproxy.federation.edu.au/fullText;dn=200311486;res=IELAPA
13. Morgan, N. (1999). Capturing crims or capturing votes? The aims and effects of mandatories. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 22(1), 267-279. Retrieved from https://search-informit-com-au.ezproxy.federation.edu.au/fullText;dn=109300416613766;res=IELAPA
14. Roche, D. (1999). Mandatory sentencing. Australian Institute of Criminology Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, (138), 16. Retrieved from https://search-informit-com-au.ezproxy.federation.edu.au/fullText;dn=200005810;res=IELAPA
15. Sentencing Advisory Council (2018, December 18). Guide to sentencing schemes in Victoria. Retrieved from https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/publications/guide-sentencing-schemes-victoria
16. Victoria State Government. (2019, May 13). Judicial appointments. Retrieved from https://www.justice.vic.gov.au/justice-system/courts-and-tribunals/judicial-appointments
17. White, R., & Perrone, S. (2005). Due Process and access to justice. In Crime and social control an introduction. (pp. 81112). South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

The speech “Miss Polly Baker, before a Court of Judicature,” was given in a court in 1747. Miss Polly Baker who lives in New England was prosecuted for the fifth time for having children without marriage. She represents her financial instability, so she is unable to hire an attorney to argue for her. She is addressing her difficulties and the worse time she is suffering from and making an effort to convince the court to pass out with her punishment and to persuade one of the judges to marry her the next day. Initially, she disagrees with this law and argues that she brought up in an inoffensive environment. She built her arguments asserting that she would absolutely admit her fine if she had ever done anything wrong with any man, women, or child. Furthermore, she reprints her emotions “I cannot conceive (may it please your Honors) what the Nature of my Offence is. Pathos I have brought Five fine Children into the World, at the Risk of my Life.” She realizes the judges, it is not a crime in the nature of things that she has given birth to five children at her own risk of life? she didn’t cheat with any other woman’s husband, but still is being punished for unreasonable law. Baker conveys a message that religion has nothing to do with the Act of Assembly, so why is she being punished? She has been excluded from the church, but still being punished as an extra punishment with laws of Assembly. She asserts that instead of her crime, the court should consider “the great and growing Number of Bachelors in the Country…… Hundreds of their Posterity to the Thousandth Generation.” Finally, she asserts that instead of compelling her, compel people with law and fines who are responsible for fornication. Baker says my examples and advice should be considered and there should be a new history upon my speech. The speaker uses several rhetorical strategies, such as logos, pathos, and ethos to convince the judges to revoke her fine and to convey her message as an example for the next generations.

The individual of this speech uses pathos the good use of appeal to emotions. Baker uses emotions to convince the judges about her financial instability as baker asserts, “May it please the Honorable Bench to indulge me in a few words: I am a poor unhappy Woman, who have no Money to fee Lawyers to plead for me.” She begins her arguments by giving respect and honoring judges and indulging them into emotions. She represents her as an innocent and poverty-stricken lady who does not have enough money to hire an attorney to argue for her. As we know she has brought to the court for the fifth time for having children without marriage and she is suffering from heavy fines by the court. She arguments with judges using the strategy of emotions to display her poverty and to revoke her fine. She wants her fine to be passed out as she says that she is already suffering from her poverty and this fine is increasing her difficulties which makes her intolerable. It is the fact when you are financially unstable, you face, suffer, and bear from this type of complications as Baker is suffering from.

The speaker of this speech is using logos rhetorical strategy (appeal to logic) to represent her arguments in order to convince the judges about her lawfulness. As she asserts “but since Laws are sometimes unreasonable in themselves…I take the Liberty to say, That I think this Law, by which I am punished, is both unreasonable in itself.” Cleverly, Baker uses logic to represents her arguments to convince judges about her arguments. She asserts with the freedom that the laws can also be untrue and the law from which she is being punished is nonsensical for her. It is the fact that laws are sometimes unreasonable and causes public dispute and strikes. For example, according to U.S history, British imposed law and expected colonists (which today is America) to pay tax and for their own defense from the continued threat of Indians. Colonists were outraged by the taxes and began to organize protests. She has been humiliated by the court for no reason although she didn’t do any murder, robbery, and sex trafficking.

Using Pathos appeal to emotions, Baker appeal to emotions are its well-built arguments. She uses emotions to assure judges that her sin has no existence “Abstracted from the Law, I cannot conceive (may it please your Honors) what the Nature of my Offence is. I have brought Five fine Children into the World, at the Risk of my Life.” She is using rhetorical strategy (pathos) to persuade judges, as she says that she has given birth to five children with putting her life in danger. According to my point of view, the government should not have any interference in public personal matters. Furthermore, she argue that “I have maintained them well by my own Industry, without burthening the Township, and would have done it better, if it had not been for the heavy Charges and Fines I have paid.” she contends that she has brought up her children at her own expense without bothering the township. She would do one step ahead if the government had imposed no fine. Although law enforcement is made to lower the crime and to provide justice, this kind of laws would surely make it difficult for an alone woman to survive. It is all true that government is made to give human rights and to protect its citizen, but in this case, an alone woman is being punished for a crime that has no existence in the mother nature.

The speaker again builds her character, an appeal to emotions, here by telling her sorrowful story “ I readily consented to the only Proposal of Marriage that ever was made me, which was when I was a Virgin; but too easily confiding in the Person’s Sincerity that made it, I unhappily lost my own Honor, by trusting to his; for he got me with Child, and then forsook me.” She illustrates her dejected past with the only guy who proposed her for marriage and then ran away. She uses emotions to declare that she was maiden that time and she lost her honor trusting him.

Baker makes an appeal to ethos, here by augmenting that “the Precepts of Religion are violated by my Transgressions. If mine, then, is a religious Offence, leave it to religious Punishments.” she is using a rhetorical strategy (ethos) to argue that if she is guilty in her religion and subject to punishment by GOD, leave it to her, there shouldn’t be any interference of government. However, It is all true that there should not be any interference of government in the matter of religion. If someone is guilty in front of his/her GOD, we don’t keep the right to punish him/her.

Finally, Polly Baker in her speech makes good arguments that there should be no fines upon giving birth to children without marriage as all human deserve the rights to live their own life. Furthermore, she contends that instead of punishing an incapacitated woman, impel bachelors by law who are responsible for infidelity. In my point of view, Baker use of logic, emotions, and authority made me more favorable at her side. She clearly uses rhetorical strategies to cogent her arguments, overall, she is effective as a speaker. It is all true that this kind of law has no existence in our world, therefore, it should be stopped.

In Scotland, there is a vast difference between the criminal and civil courts’ structure. The different courts settle different cases solving individual disputes. The civil court’s structure handles legal disputes involving individual matters in different categories by the type of dispute, such as company law, family law, and partnership law. Its main focus is to recompense the innocent party affected by a separate party. On the other hand, criminal law is a procedure of an effort by the state to uphold social order and to prosecute individuals who have acted disorderly in a criminal manner. This can be a variety of crimes, for example theft, burglary, or physical assault. The differences between the two court structures are the types of disputes being settled within the court and the different parties involved in the dispute and the judiciary. Criminal law in Scotland contains four types of criminal court: the High Court, the Sheriff Court, the Sheriff Appeal Court, and the Justice of the Peace Court. These all-handle different levels of prosecution, and also have different judicial members attending and prosecuting.

The High Court in Scotland, established 1672, is known as the Supreme Criminal Court. The High Court consists of the Lord Justice-General, the Lord Justice-Clerk, and the Lord Commissioners of justiciary. The Lord Justice-General and Lord Justice-Clerk are chairpersons in the criminal court’s appeal. Whilst dealing with all nature of crimes, the High Court of Scotland complete authority to deal with the most serious cases, including rape and murder, and the individual on trial is named as the accused and are prosecuted by advocate deputes. In some rare cases, there is the possibility for private prosecution to be included in the case. As the Scottish court follows the system of ‘innocent until proven guilty’, prosecutors must be able to prove guiltiness with absolute clarity. When court is in session the court contains only two judges when hearing sentence appeals and at three or more judges in cases against conviction. In extraordinary cases, more judges may sit in depending on the severity of the charge or where principal matters of law are to be regarded. Besides these cases, the High Court may also take cases passed on by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. The Lord Advocate may refer particular items of law to the High Court for opinion, which allows the court to pave the law for similar succeeding cases. An example of a case that would take place in the High Court is the case of Gareth Kerr. On the 24th of February 2011, Gareth Kerr was found guilty of the attempted murder and robbery of Gail McCann, care of Grampian Police. Heard by Lord Hardie, Lord Smith, and Lord Dorrian, the opinion of the court found Gareth guilty due to the severe injuries and permanent impairment due to 25 stab wounds on his former girlfriend due to the Crown Appeal Note under section 74(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Scotland) 1995.

The Scotland’s Sheriff Court covers the majority of cases in the criminal court, only if the severity of the crime is not sufficient to be upheld in the High Court. The criminal cases in the Sheriff Court are typically heard by a sheriff and a jury, known as the solemn procedure, but can also be heard exclusively by a sheriff, known as the summary procedure. Criminal cases are heard through the summary procedure, while the Sheriff Court has jurisdiction to hear all criminal cases, with the exceptions of rape, murder, and treason, as they will be held solely in the High Court. The Sheriff Court was put in place to handle lesser cases, such as narcotics possession, theft, and minor cases of assault. The maximum sentence allowed to be given during a summary procedure court hearing is one year of prison time or a fine of up to £10,000, or a maximum of 5 years in prison or an unlimited fine for solemn cases. An example of the Sheriff Court summary procedure case would be the May 2017 case in the Sheriffdom of Grampian of Peterhead against Lyn Elrick regarding an act of vandalism in terms of section 52 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995. Lyn Elrick vandalized a motor vehicle previously jointly owned by her and her former partner. Although Lyn Elrick attempted to defend herself by saying she had not known the vehicle was sold by her former partner to a new owner before damaging it, however Sheriff Philip Mann found her guilty of vandalism due to an unreasonable excuse.

The Scotland’s Sheriff Appeal Court was established in September 2015 with the main function to hear proceedings ensuing from summary criminal proceedings from the Sheriff Court as well as the Justice of the Peace Court. Along with this, the Sheriff Appeal Court also hears proceedings about bail settlements. Removing the cases from other courts was the main function of increasing efficiency across all levels of the judiciary as the sheriff appeal court as the cases will be dealt with at their respective appropriate level. The court has no jury and there could be either two or three sheriffs, depending on the proceeding, and the hearings are conducted by a sole sheriff. One such case that took place in the sheriff appeal court led by Sheriff Principal M. Stephen and Sheriff A. Cubie on the 14th of August, 2019, by Lauren Burke against Procurator Fiscal, Stirling. December 13, 2018, the appellant was driving a motorized vehicle under the influence of alcohol, scoring at 82mcg of alcohol per 100ml of breath, nearly four times more than the legal limit. Lauren Burke landed a punishment of level one community payback due to the Criminal Procedure Act (1995) s 227B (2) and s 227A (3) and (4), and with this there were no flaws found in the Sheriff’s hearing and therefore the punishment was deemed appropriate.

The Justice of the Peace Court hears all minor criminal proceedings upon first instance, hearing approximately a third of the court cases in Scotland. A ‘justice of the peace’ is a lay magistrate, chosen by the population within the local region that is trained in procedure and criminal law. These justices will always either sit in a group of three or by oneself, and deal with the most minor of summary cases, such as careless driving, theft, assault, and breach of the peace. Justices are also allowed to have a lawyer present in court, who act as legal advisers that the justice can refer to in regards to procedure and law.

So, in this essay, we have examined the four main types of criminal courts in Scotland and the features of their procedure.

In this essay, I am going to review one of the most reviled Supreme Court cases in the United States, the 2005 Kelo v. New London case.

In the Kelo v. New London case, New London, a city in Connecticut, used its eminent domain jurisdiction to confiscate remote property to vend to private developers. The city claimed acquiring the land would generate jobs and raise tax revenues.

Susette Kelo was among the others whose property was seized and sued New London in state court. The property owners debated the town debased the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause. This clause assured the government would not take private property for public use deprived of just reimbursement. The property owners debated that private property to market to private developers was not communal use. The Connecticut Supreme Court reigned for New London. The court mainly concentrated on the contrast between private and public use, rather than on the subject of whether economic development itself constituted a public use under the Fifth Amendment, and concluded that takings which would profit private parties could nevertheless constitute public utility so long as the public interest was imminent.

A similar situation took place in Poletown, where the use of eminent domain for an automobile manufacturing plant has deprived many people of protection and livelihood, mainly to meet corporate demand. As for Kelo, about nine people would be coercively departed for a system that was found at trial to be uncertain in part. In a five to four opinion by Justice John Stevens, the plurality detained that the city’s taking of private property to retail for private progress tempered as a public use in the application of the takings clause. In Poletown v. General Motors, the Supreme Court decreed that it was okay for General Motors to institute on public property even though it was a private organization since it was generating jobs, which would profit the public. The government practiced eminent domain to take part of Poletown for this company and this was how the Supreme Court verified it.

In the Kelo v. New London case, the property was taken through eminent domain and was to be worked for redevelopment designs. The court claimed that as long as it produced jobs and things that would profit the public it would pass for public use. The only distinction is that GM actually generated jobs which benefited people in the city wherein Kelo, the property was not put to beneficial use for the people.

And although by its decision the court nevertheless allowed the private developer to realize his plans, he was unable to obtain funding and abandoned the project, and the disputed land remained an undeveloped empty plot. Despite this, this case left a noticeable mark in judicial history.

The role of the judiciary in the political process is a complex one, and, as with much else in politics is essentially a question of who wields power. In recent times, it is also an issue that has achieved significant public salience, with high-profile Supreme Court rulings on both sides of the Atlantic occurring at the same time as growing public indignation at the apparent unaccountability of international courts which seek to alter domestic law. This dissertation will analyse the extent to which it is the role of the judiciary to intervene in political matters, cutting through the rhetorical smokescreen. In order to conduct a thorough assessment, it will first examine the common law system of precedent, before analyzing the roles of Supreme Courts in both the US and the UK, and concluding with an analysis of international courts using the European Court of Human Rights as a case study. It will argue that in domestic matters judges should have free rein to exercise their discretion and intervene in political matters where appropriate under the law, but that international courts should refrain from doing so wherever possible. However, before this judgment can be reached, a definition must be provided for the term ‘political matters.’

An essential precondition to the formation of a judgment on the role of the judiciary in political matters is a consistent definition of exactly what ‘political matters’ entail. The questions surrounding the nature, purpose and essence of politics have been discussed at length by eminent scholars throughout history, and before examining the judiciary, it is essential to conduct a thorough evaluation of the merits of their varied contributions. In classical terms, politics is defined as the process of the allocation of resources between competing interests, or ‘who gets what, when and how,’ or what may be termed the transactional model. This definition has, more recently, been challenged, with modern academics choosing to focus instead on politics as a medium for the endorsement of social values, or as a means of identification with a larger group, a concept popularised as ‘identity politics.’ Politics acting as an expression of society’s morals is a view endorsed by David Easton, who characterizes it as the ‘authoritative allocation of values for society.’ Meanwhile, the modern era has seen the idea that politics is based primarily on identity, rather than economic rationality, move into the mainstream, with Professor Christina Boswell, one of its most influential proponents writing that, ‘we need to understand that political contestation is as much about cultural identity and recognition, as it is about allocating material resources.’

All of the above definitions have both merits and drawbacks. The traditional conception is clearly defined, with an emphasis on material prosperity characteristic of the era which it represents, but it fails to acknowledge that humans are not entirely rational, self-interested decision-makers, and therefore neglects the significant role played by identity and social values in political decisions, on both individual and societal levels. Easton’s focus on the shared values that politics represents fares better in this regard but nonetheless, by describing the ‘allocation’ of values as a top-down process, neglects the diversity of opinion in modern society, and the strong sense of identity behind it. There is therefore a risk that in Easton’s model, de jure principles, as ordained by the state, take the place of de facto norms as the barometer of public opinion, leading to real-world viewpoints becoming disconnected from his model of politics. This model, then, is also flawed. Finally, the advance of identity politics seems to have attained particular relevance in the political debates of today, with issues such as the Brexit referendum and immigration dividing people along lines other than the classical economic spectrum. There can be no doubt that on these issues, cultural identity plays a significant role in determining individuals’ positions. However, despite accurately opining that the transactional model is no longer widely applicable, ‘identity politics’ cannot, for the purposes of assessing the validity of judicial intervention, be used as a definition on its own, since it would encompass anything affecting anyone’s identity. Everything would become a political matter, and since this is not what is generally meant an alternative definition must be sought.

For these reasons, this dissertation will adopt a hybrid definition of politics, utilizing a combination of the concepts described above. In common with Lasswell’s transactional approach, politics will relate to evaluating the interests of different groups, and attempting to execute a compromise between them. However, unlike Lasswell’s model, these compromises will not be restricted to competition for material resources. Instead, this definition of politics includes the analysis of competing cultural and ideological interests, such as immigration or security policy, or the degree of state intervention in everyday life. In summary, therefore, this dissertation will treat political matters as relating to the state’s attempts to strike compromises between different groups. The distinction between groups and individuals is important here, since the courts’ primary function on is to decide disputes between individual citizens, and they fulfil this duty every day. Since this is demonstrably and undisputedly the purpose of the courts, to define disputes between individuals as routinely political would be to render the question moot; only when the conflict reaches a macroscopic scale, impacting larger groups, does it become political. Having provided a satisfactory definition for politics, it is necessary to examine where the judiciary fits into it.

Throughout the history of the English legal system, judges have made often decisive contributions to apparently political issues, and created little controversy in doing so. Integral to this process is the system of common law, and the concept of precedent. Under common law, a judge’s ruling, in any case, becomes part of society’s legal fabric and is binding on any similar, future cases; a precedent has been set. This precedent can only be altered by the judgment of a superior court, or, in the case of the UK Supreme Court, by a future judgment of the Supreme Court. The power of this system of precedent is best demonstrated by two historical cases, which this dissertation will briefly analyze: R v Dudley and Stephens and Donoghue v Stevenson.

R v Dudley and Stephens was an 1884 case in which two men were tried for the murder of a fellow sailor following a shipwreck at sea. They had killed and eaten the cabin boy to save themselves from starvation and attempted to rely upon the defense of ‘necessity,’ since they had had no alternative. Necessity had never previously been accepted as a defense to the crime of murder, and the court ruled that it was inadmissible, and in doing so, through precedent, enshrined this ruling in law for centuries to come; in the 137 years since, necessity has never been accepted as a defense to murder, irrespective of the innumerable different circumstances in which it has been raised. This length of time is demonstrative of the power of judges to make or amend the law under common law, but this particular case also indicates that the presumption of their reluctance to do so is generally accurate. Despite ample opportunity to do so, the House of Lords in the original case, and all courts since, have refused to amend the law to allow necessity as a defense for murder, apparently suggesting that judges acknowledge the desirability of placing effective limits on their own power as unelected officials in a democratic state and that they may refrain from political intervention in all but the most extreme circumstances.

An antithetical example to this judicial restraint is provided by the equally famous, or infamous, Donoghue v Stevenson, which imposed a legal duty towards those whose lives might foreseeably be adversely affected by the actions of the individual in question. This case involved a woman, May Donoghue, who became unwell after drinking ginger beer, produced by Stevenson, had been contaminated by a dead snail. In an episode of noticeably strident moralization, Lord Atkin delivered a judgment, declaring that ‘the rule that you are to love your neighbor becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbor.’ Atkin’s resort to justification through fundamental religious and ethical principles, rather than the law as it stood, is a demonstration of the tenuous link between the Lords’ judgment in this case, and the legal precedent. It is therefore notable that the decision, based, in effect, on nothing other than the moral compasses of the five Law Lords who heard the case has weathered the test of time and now represents a key component of British civil law. Since it dealt with the balance of power between manufacturer and consumer, and particularly due to the lack of any real legal rationale, this decision must be considered political.

Considered in combination, the above cases represent strong evidence that historically judicial intervention in politics has been intermittent, and largely influenced by the views and ambitions of individual judges. It is also noteworthy that on this evidence alone, this intervention seems to have been a positive force, since Donoghue v Stevenson introduced a key and widely accepted pillar of the legal system, where Parliament, which as the legislative branch of government should take primary responsibility for new law, had shown no inclination to do so. The judgment was simple, necessary, and relatively uncontroversial.

These cases serve to illustrate the backdrop of precedent which pervades the English legal system, and thus give a rudimentary impression of one particular form of judicial intervention in politics. However, in the years since these decisions, the nature of judges’ political interventions has changed substantially. The system of precedent remains intact, and decisions made under it, and the law created thereby, are rarely politically controversial, at least partly due to the supremacy of Parliamentary legislation, which can abolish precedent instantaneously. Instead, the source of the contemporary debate on the desirability of having British judges intervene in politics is, in the main, judicial review, which this dissertation will address later.

Before examining the process of judicial review in greater depth, however, this dissertation will examine and analyse the various roles of those instruments best placed to utilise it: Supreme Courts. Although the precise makeup, nature and responsibilities of Supreme Courts vary significantly between countries and legal systems, they share a few key features. The doctrine of the separation of powers dictates that political power must be shared between three branches of the state: executive, legislative, and judiciary. A Supreme Court represents the highest arbiter of the power vested in the judiciary, responsible for arbitrating on constitutional matters in addition to acting, in many jurisdictions, as the court of highest appeal. Before examining the role of the UK Supreme Court, it is informative to reflect on the problems encountered by another nation in relation to the activities of its constitutional court: the United States.

The issues encountered, and engendered, by the United States Supreme Court have been well-documented. In summary, the court has found itself dragged into a long series of disputes on highly contentious matters of constitutional interpretation with a discernibly political component. As a result, there is a consensus amongst scholars on the subject that ‘politicization of the Supreme Court causes the American public to lose faith in the Court.’ In recent years, this tendency has been exacerbated to the point at which a 2012 poll found that only 37% of Americans had any more than ‘some’ confidence in the Supreme Court. In order to conduct an assessment of the extent to which a politicized Supreme Court is responsible for division and acrimony within American politics, it is first necessary to conduct an analysis of one of the most controversial cases the court has decided: Roe v Wade.

Decided in 1973, this majority judgment mandated that abortion be legal in all US states, and created a political firestorm in its wake. Over the following decades, the accepted wisdom, both in scholarly discussion and among laymen, embraced the idea that this decision was responsible for division in American politics, on abortion and more widely. It was also argued that the legitimacy of the Supreme Court had been irreversibly damaged. If accurate, this would clearly indicate that political interventions of this nature should be avoided at all costs. However, a rich vein of revisionist scholarship has emerged to challenge the assumptions of the classical interpretation. The research of Greenhouse and Siegel, for example, has found that until 1989, fifteen years after the Court’s judgment, political party identification did not correlate clearly with support for abortion, and that division over abortion did not therefore solidify until at least two decades after Roe v Wade. Therefore, rather than a portrait of the ‘abortion conflict as resulting from courts ‘shutting down’ politics,’ it is more accurate to describe ‘a conflict in which the Supreme Court was not the only or even the most important actor.’ A multitude of other factors were at play, including shifting religious demographics, political party re-alignment, and economic factors.

Furthermore, there is a significant and expanding body of research that seems to indicate that, rather than creating division in American politics, the Supreme Court is capable of laying the groundwork for compromise and agreement. Franklin and Kosaki made the argument that, particularly on issues on which the public is not already bitterly divided, a Supreme Court judgment has the potential to increase acceptance of the viewpoint it represents. For example, while it is true that the immediate aftermath of the Roe v Wade decision saw a spike in polarisation on the issue of discretionary abortion, on which the public had long-standing and deeply-embedded views, there was also a marked increase in support for abortions on health grounds, which had occupied a less prominent part of the American political consciousness. The Supreme Court, it seems, had decreased division on this particular issue, rather than exacerbating it in all cases, as many claim.

Having considered the various facets of the question, it is clear that the court’s judgment in Roe v Wade created a number of issues of great nuance and complexity. On balance, the increased polarisation on discretionary abortions that followed means this judgment cannot be considered an unmitigated success, and perhaps indicates that on matters of such great cultural, social, and political relevance, courts should refrain from intervening too broadly. However, questions raised regarding the degree to which the court was responsible for the ensuing polarisation, as well as a broader consensus on health-related abortions, suggest that in the right circumstances, political intervention from the courts may be a positive influence on society. It is even possible that a narrower ruling in Roe v Wade, restricted to abortions on health grounds, would have helped to forge a future compromise on abortion more broadly. However, even if it were conclusively shown that a political court would be a positive influence on society, questions remain about potential damage to its own legitimacy. It is self-evident that the rule of law is a principle worthy of the highest degree of respect, and it follows from this that any action weakening public respect for, and commitment to, this principle should be avoided. It has been posited that the politicisation of the US Supreme Court may have damaged its image, and lessened the public perception of its legitimacy. The seriousness of this possibility necessitates that it be thoroughly examined.

Numerous studies have concluded that the American public recognises that the Supreme Court is, in essence, a political institution, making decisions of a largely political nature. A paper penned by Nicholson and Hansford found that in the minds of the public, judges were akin to ‘partisans in robes.’ They also found that, as with other political institutions such as Congress, the public response becomes more polarised when decisions break along party lines. It is therefore unsurprising that the authors concluded that the degree of public acceptance of Supreme Court decisions was similar to that of other institutions, such as the House of Representatives. This is a deeply concerning conclusion, since while Congressional legitimacy is derived, at least partially, from the democratic process, the court is entirely dependent on public acceptance of the decisions of its unelected officials.

Philosophy is composed of the 3 branches: Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Value Theory. Metaphysics is the branch that studies the nature of reality. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies the scope of human knowledge. Value theory is comprised of two distinct subsets: ethics and aesthetics. Ethics is the branch that evaluates human interaction. Aesthetics is the study of beauty and art. Philosophy is considered a second-order discipline because it examines problems other disciplines deal with. Metaethics is the branch of ethics that studies the foundations of morality. Metaethics discusses whether or not moral truths exist. Normative ethics is the study of how to act ethically, specifically what we should or should not do. Finally, Applied ethics is taking the knowledge we learned from metaethics and normative ethics and applying it to real-world situations. Normative ethics discusses the actions of our moral behavior. This version of ethics provides guidelines for the ideal way of living by asking the question “What I ought to do?”. Normative ethics uses these guidelines to then rate the action on a scale of morality. Applied Ethics deals with aspects of moral action and works to determine criteria that they can be discussed in an unbiased lens.

These ethical fields can be used to analyze many issues that we as a society struggle with today such as abortion. Abortions have been performed for thousands of years and were legal in the United States during the colonial period. In late 1800, Conservative states began passing laws that made abortion illegal. These laws could have been motivated by a lack of resources to care for the newly born children. However, during this time receiving an abortion was a risky practice and would often be performed by people without medical licenses in unsterile environments. With today’s technology, abortions are safe and reliable. By the time the medical field had caught up and made these vital changes, most states had outlawed abortion. The women seeking abortions in these states had to get the operation from illegal practitioners who did not use these updated medical advances.

Back alley abortions happen to this day and are often deadly. Many people in the medical field are big supporters of legalizing abortions. They take the stance that if abortions are illegal women will not stop wanting abortions and only increase the occurrence of back alley abortions. Criminalizing abortion does not lower the number of women who wanted abortions. Many women will die trying to self-induce abortions or by going through abortion in unsafe and unsanitary ways. Roe v Wade was the landmark case that made it possible for women to obtain safe and legal abortions from medical professionals. Roe v Wade made getting abortions much safer lowering the pregnancy related death rate and injury.

Roe v Wade arose in Texas where state laws had prohibited Texan women from receiving abortions and many women found themselves restoring unsafe illegal abortions. During this time battle between pro-lifers and pro-choicers was at its most volatile. Abortion clinics were commonly protested, harassing women trying to receive care, vandalism and blocking access to clinics. Later that decade there were bombings, physical attacks, and even murders that would threaten anyone who supported abortions or provided abortion treatment. Since Roe v Wade, the supreme court has restricted abortion through the ruling of “ Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 established that states can restrict pre-viability abortions. Restrictions can be placed on first-trimester abortions in ways that are not medically necessary, as long as the restrictions do not place an “undue burden” on women seeking abortion services.” These restrictions include parental involvement, mandatory waiting periods, and biased counseling.

I believe in the consequentialist theory of judging actions on their morality. Consequentialism is a branch of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one’s conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act is one that will produce a good outcome or consequence. A consequence of criminalizing abortion is the loss of life of women seeking abortions through back alley abortions. Which is why it could be seen as unjust or immoral from a consequentialist point of view.

Some would say that abortion is the death of a baby and that the consequence is unjust so therefore abortion is unjust. However, I would retaliate with the fact that either way women who want an abortion will obtain one it is the interest in prioritizing their life above that of a fetus. I believe people should have full control of their own bodies and be able to deal with the consequences of those actions. When determining if abortion should be legalized we should always look at the results of those actions. We need to see which result will pose the most good for the people around us and then make sure that option is executed.

As neuroscience begins to grow, it will soon be able to find the objective in the human brain and reveal to courtrooms the secrets hiding in a criminal’s mind. The first-time brain scans were used in a courtroom was in 2003. To understand the topic better, understanding how the brain works is something to discuss first.

The human brain is one of the most complex organs in the human body. Weighing three pounds and made up of one hundred billion neurons, makes things slightly difficult when trying to determine criminal’s behavioral patterns. The brain is divided into three parts. The cerebrum, being responsible for our intelligence, is divided into four different lobes: frontal, temporal, occipital and parietal. Each of these lobes plays a part of what determines a criminal’s behavioral pattern or if a criminal may be ill and need to be treated. With all the new technology and useful tools, like MRI’s, scientists know a significant amount more about the Brain than they did fifty years ago. “We could one day use neuroscience to determine a criminals mental state” (Miller, 2017).

The current use of neuroscience can help judges all over understand and begin to explain a criminal’s behavior. A court case in 2003 took place with a young lady by the name of Sheila Berry. Judges say in a state of unexplainable rage, Sheila murdered her friend with a cinder block. Eight months later, Berry had a brain tumor removed. According to the court case records, dating back to 1990 to 2003 shows, the tumor grew and sparked Sheila’s unexplainable anger, and just kept growing to be worse. After the tumor was removed Berry’s behavior went from uncontrollable to completely docile, like the anger just went away. Years passed when a Massachusetts judge found her guilty for first-degree murder. After tons of trials Berry’s lawyer got the judge to reverse the conviction and let her off. This would not have been possible if there were no brain scans showing how crucial the brain tumor impacted Sheila. The proof of her behavioral patterns and differences from before the tumor and after the tumor were a key objective to determining her not guilty.

Over the past decade, hundreds of criminal defendants in the United States have used the quote ‘Their brains made them do it’. Years after years, criminal defendants have begun using neuroscience to back up their claims of responsibility to decrease the sentence. Neuroscience isn’t all brain scans. It includes the complete background medical history. In the past three years, around 12% of all United States murder trials and 25% of all death penalty trials, the criminal has been given a lighter punishment and the treatment needed to get better all due to neuroscience evidence. Neuroscience has become deeply involved in sentencing criminals.

Is it possible that every person who stands before a judge is completely guilty? In some cases, yes, but in a handful, no. Britain was the first country to introduce the production of always using brain scans when standing before a judge and defending your defendant. Britain has found that some criminals deserve to be locked up, but some need mental help and could use this as an opportunity to treat the ill instead of possibly serving a death penalty. From 2011-2015 they have had a 6% success rate getting the judge to reverse the convict and 20% have gained an extra hearing, lessened their sentence, a reversal, or bought themselves some time.

The importance neuroscience brings to a courtroom is brain scans are something you can’t ‘make up’. It’s hard to disaggregate.