Research Korner: Law and Ethics Essays

Wigand and the Tobacco Whistleblowing

Wigand and the Tobacco Whistleblowing Jeffrey Wigand’s Short Biography             Dr. Jeffrey Wigand was born on December 17, 1942 in New York City. He grew up in the Bronx in a Roman Catholic family. During his childhood, they moved to Pleasant Valley, New York. He earned his Master’s and Ph.D. from the Buffalo’s University Buffalo School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences after a brief time in the military including his short assignment in Vietnam. In 1970, he met Linda, his first wife, while attending a Judo class. However, they eventually divorce because Linda developed multiple sclerosis shortly after their marriage. (Astrobank, 2001; Jeffrey Wigand.com, 2000-2001; & Wikipedia, 2006)             He worked for several health care companies, including Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson prior to working for Brown and Williamson (B&W) Tobacco Corporation. While working at Johnson & Johnson, he met his second wife Lucretia in 1981 whom he had two daughters.  Additionally, he was also employed at Union Carbide in Japan as a general manager and marketing director and as a senior vice-president at Technicon Instruments. (Astrobank, 2001; Jeffrey Wigand.com, 2000-2001; & Wikipedia, 2006)             After 17 years in the health-care field, he went to work for B&W Tobacco Corporation in Louisville, Kentucky in January 1989 as a vice-president for research and development. His initial assignment was to develop a new, healthier cigarette to put into a competitive market. After a year at B&W, Wigand began to keep an extensive scientific diary when he became aware of studies done by the company in Switzerland of smoking dangers.  The company thought that he was becoming a problem with his questions and criticism that was why his evaluation in 1991 at work read that he had “a difficulty in communication. (Astrobank, 2001; Jeffrey Wigand.com, 2000-2001; & Wikipedia, 2006)             In the late 1992, he objected to the use of coumarin in cigarettes because it was proved to cause cancer in rats and mice. However, he was told that the removal of coumarin would have a negative impact to the sales. His anger begun to focus and take shape that was why he concentrated his research on the properties of additives. Conversely, he was fired on March 24, 1993. He was escorted from the building and his diary and papers were confiscated. (Astrobank, 2001; Jeffrey Wigand.com, 2000-2001; & Wikipedia, 2006)             After this event, he reportedly “blew the whistle” on Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation.  He became known as a whistleblower when he exposed the company’s practice of “impact boosting” by intentionally manipulating the effect of nicotine in cigarettes on the CBS news program, the 60 Minutes. (Astrobank, 2001; Jeffrey Wigand.com, 2000-2001; & Wikipedia, 2006)             Wigand claimed that he was subsequently harassed and received anonymous threats on his life because of that action. However, even though his personal life was destroyed, he saved the lives of millions of cigarette users. In 1995, one and a half years after that event, he took a job teaching Japanese at a fraction of his former salary which he continues to do until this day. On one hand, on February 4, 1996, Mike Wallace released the full story of “whistleblowing” on 60 Minutes program. Similarly, it was portrayed by Russell Crowe in the movie, The Insider. (Astrobank, 2001; Jeffrey Wigand.com, 2000-2001; & Wikipedia, 2006) The Whistleblowing: an Analysis             Dr. Jeffrey Wigand was the president of research and development (R&D) for the B&W Tobacco Corporation, the third largest tobacco company, from January 1989 to late March 1993. He was responsible as the senior officer in R&D for reporting to, consulting with and giving advice to Thomas Sandefur, the president of B&W. Doctor Wigand said that one of the reasons why he was hired by B&W was to make a safer cigarette that would reduce the carcinogens within tobacco products (60 Minutes, 1996). However the company abandoned his idea of trying to develop a new and safer cigarette, so he turned his attention in investigating the additives and flavoring in B&W tobacco products. (as cited in Miethe, 1999)             Wigand alleged that one of these flavorings, the coumarin, was used in B&W’s pipe tobacco products even after it was shown to cause various cancers. According to him, in his remarked on the CBS program, 60 Minutes, when he sent a memo to Sandefur voicing his concerns about coumarin, he was told that B&W would continue working on a substitute for coumarin but wouldn’t remove it because it would impact sales. Further, he said that he wasn’t surprised that he was fired after his confrontation with Sandefur. However, B&W denied his accusations and testified in court records that he was fired because he misled management at B&W with half-truths to the point that the management lost trust in him and that he exhibited an abusive style with co-workers. (as cited in Miethe, 1999)             Wigand’s identity as an external whistleblower became public after his termination at B&W. He made the following allegations against his former employer in court documents, newspaper coverage, and television interviews: 1. B&W manipulated nicotine levels in cigarettes by the use of additives, by blending techniques, and by looking at genetically engineered tobacco. The primary form of managing or manipulating nicotine delivery was through the use of ammonia compounds. B&W knowingly put acetaldehyde, an additive that was used to boost the nicotine effect, in its tobacco products. (as cited in Miethe, 1999) 2. B&W falsified evidence regarding the damaging effects of tobacco. Results of cigarette research were manipulated to prevent discovery in the event of litigation. Company lawyers edited potentially incriminating information out of company reports. (as cited in Miethe, 1999) 3. Tobacco companies, knowing that nicotine was addictive before federal researchers did, deliberately manipulated nicotine levels in cigarettes to hook smokers. (as cited in Miethe, 1999) 4. The public was intentionally misled to believe that the industry did not know tobacco was addictive or that there was a link between tobacco usage and disease. Former CEO Thomas Sandefur lied to the U.S. Congress when he said that he believed that nicotine was not addictive. (as cited in Miethe, 1999) 5. B&W continued to use a flavoring in pipe tobacco that was known to cause cancer in lab animals. (as cited in Miethe, 1999) 6. B&W quashed plans for developing a safer cigarette because of fear of litigation for "unsafe" tobacco products. (as cited in Miethe, 1999)             The nature of retaliation such as the physical threats against his family, lawsuits, negative publicity and numerous threats of future litigation for speaking out against Wigand for disclosing industry practices has been wide, varied and severe. Such clear reprisals were more dramatic and chronic evaluating its scope and nature (Ling, 1991). However, by all accounts, Dr. Jeffrey Wigand's testimony about B&W practices has had a dramatic impact on public policy and public attitudes toward the tobacco industry. Through his disclosures, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) acquired the information it needed to regulate tobacco by establishing rules that would govern the accessibility of cigarettes and designate nicotine as a drug. (Keenan & McClain, 1992)             The attorneys general in more than half of the U.S. states now had crucial information to use to sue the tobacco industry for reimbursements for the costs of smoking-related illnesses. From the perspective of anti-tobacco activists, the timing of these disclosures was nearly perfect because it occurred a short period after the seven U.S. tobacco companies testified under oath in a U.S. congressional hearing that they did not believe that nicotine is addictive or dangerous and that their companies did not manipulate its levels (Courier-Journal 1997). (as cited in Keenan & McClain, 1992)             The only sad thing happened was that he suffered the aftermath of hid disclosures because aside from the various types of retaliation he believes the tobacco industry has inflicted on him, his life has changed in several fundamental ways. First, his marriage was dissolved and his former wife received sole custody of his children. Second, some of his attorneys have filed a lawsuit against him for failing to pay their legal fees. Third, his salary has dropped from $400,000 per year as a major executive to slightly more than $30,000 as a high school teacher. Fourth, he remains in constant jeopardy of future legal action by tobacco officials for unlawful disclosures. (Miethe, 1999)             Nonetheless, his story was important because it conveyed how successful whistleblowing can be accomplished and highlighted the hazards of taking this action even if for Wigand whistleblowing has involved enormous personal risks. This also helps us understand that the decision to blow the whistle on organizational misconduct is never easy or clear-cut. There are risks and rewards for both speaking out and remaining silent. Whatever choice is made, there are consequences for the individual, the organization, and the wider society. Similarly, it helps us think that before we act, it's important to realize that exposing abuse and corruption is serious business that has lifelong consequences. (Alfred, 1990)

Wigand and the Tobacco Whistleblowing

Wigand and the Tobacco Whistleblowing Jeffrey Wigand’s Short Biography Dr. Jeffrey Wigand was born on December 17, 1942 ...

Cruise Ship Liability: Passenger Rights & Remedies for Rape & Injuries in the High Seas

Cruise Ship Liability: Passenger Rights & Remedies for Rape & Injuries in the High Seas       Rape & Injuries on Cruise Ships             Cruise vacations have increased in popularity in the last three decades with eight million people taking their vacation on the high seas. As a result, the cruise industry has incurred the fastest growth rate in the vacation market. To meet the increasing demand, industry leaders plan to construct around fifty cruise ships in the next five years. Greater demand translates to billions of dollars in revenue to the industry. However, despite the successes of the industry, individual cruise lines have been reprimanded for their poor sanitation and safety practices. Some lines have admitted dumping polluted sewage in the ocean while other lines had fire accidents, collisions and even abandonment. Of increasing concern is the escalating incidence of physical injuries sustained during planned activities or excursions, accidents such as food borne illnesses and slip-and-fall,   and crime aboard cruise ships ranging from theft to sexual assault and rape. These crimes are committed by both passengers and ship crew members against other passengers. (Demos, 1992)             Unfortunately for the injured parties or victims of accidents, physical injuries and criminal activities, cruise ships have developed efficient ways of limiting their liability through the inclusion of limited liability clauses for different types of activities printed in passenger tickets. Apart from limited liability clauses, cruise ships have also indicated on passenger tickets requiring that all lawsuits should be filed at the judicial courts having jurisdiction of the port of embarkation. This works in favor of cruise lines because of the knowledge that most passengers do not live near the port of embarkation and even outside of the state. Due to their lack of proximity to the area, passengers with legal claims become reluctant to pursue legal action because of the expected cost and inconvenience to them of traveling to another state for the trial. In most cases, the time limit for commencing suit just elapses freeing the cruise line from liability. (Booth, 1999)               The range of causes for court claims occurring aboard cruise ships or related to cruise ship activities show that the same injuries and crime committed on land may also be committed on the high seas. Despite the heightened efficiency of cruise lines in evading liability, succeeding discussions look into the rights and remedies available to cruise ship passengers from these causes of action together with the concurrent liabilities of cruise lines for these causes. A determination of these factors should result to a determination of recommendations on the manner that the rights of cruise ship passengers should be protected and the liabilities of cruise ships incurred. Rights & Remedies of Cruise Ship Passengers & Cruise Ship Liability             Under Section 3(6) of the 1984 Shipping Act, cruise ships coming from United States ports are deemed as passenger common carriers. In general, common carriers hold the special duty to passengers in ensuring that they arrive at their destinations safely. Apart from this, common carriers also have the duty to exercise the highest degree of care in ensuring that no physical harm comes to their passengers. (Booth, 1999) The strict liability of common carriers has been established in the early case of New Jersey Steamboat Co. v Brockett (1887). Moreover, Holland America Cruises, Inc. v Underwood (1985) provides that a special relationship exist between the cruise lines and its passengers based on passengers entrusting their safety to the protection and care of cruise lines. In this case, the court held that common carriers hold the duty to protect their passengers from criminal attack. This means that the responsibilities of the cruise lines to ensure safe transportation encompass the provision of protection to passengers from rape, molestation and assault committed by its own crew members (Norris, 1990).                Translated into rights and remedies for cruise ship passengers, the provision of the law and jurisprudence provides for the rights of passengers to have a safe trip and to expect cruise lines to exercise due diligence in ensuring their safety even from its own crew members. Remedies emanating from violations of this right include action for damages under tort law for negligence such as accidents and other covered violations of the duty of care, civil action whenever applicable, and criminal action for the crimes of physical injuries, assault or rape committed to passengers of cruise ships by fellow passengers or crew members. (Kennedy, Sakis & Troy, 1999)              The assertion of rights of passengers of cruise ships against crew members has been covered by New Jersey Steamboat Co. v Brockett (1887). In this case, a passenger incurred physical injuries when the watchman of the ship forcefully removed the passenger from a restricted area. The court held that the right of the passenger to safe transportation involves protection from the personnel of the cruise ship. The court drew the right to protection against ship personnel based on the contract between the cruise lines and the passenger for safe transportation extending to the passenger entitlement to protection against the crew members due to either negligence or misconduct. Since the ship’s crew work for the cruise lines, the liability is imputed to the cruise lines because it is the crew of the ship that implements the contract. The imputation of liability is also supported by public policy.             The protection of the right of passengers of cruise ships was also affirmed in New Orleans & N.E.R.R. Co. v Jopes (1891). The case involved a conductor shooting a passenger in a train. However, despite the difference in factual circumstances, the court applied the decision in the Brockett case of imposing the absolute liability of common carriers towards the safety of their passengers. The court further expanded on the absolute liability by removing the condition that the employee of the carrier should have committed the act linked to liability while performing his or her functions. This means that even if the employee is off duty but the act has been committed against the passenger within the scope of responsibility of the common carrier, the carrier still accrues liability.                In the succeeding case of Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v Morton (1993), a passenger alleged that a crew member raped her in her cabin. In deciding the case, the court applied the principle of reasonable care in application to the circumstances of the case and found the ship liable.             Reasonable care has also been applied in the determination of liability of cruise lines for accidents resulting to personal injuries in cruise ships. Kermarec v Compagnie Generale Transatlantique (1959) involved a person meeting a slip-and-fall while visiting a crew member on board a cruise ship. In determining the liability of the cruise ship, the court held that the ship owner owes the duty to exercise reasonable care to people lawfully on board the vessel. The court determined that in considering the liability of ship owners for accidents on board the vessel, the general standard of reasonable duty of care applies, provided only that the person is deemed lawfully boarding the vessel. This implies that people lawfully on board a ship are entitled to the right to safety based on the general standard of duty of care accruing to the ship owner.             A consideration of the jurisprudence relating to the rights and remedies of cruise ship passengers and the liabilities of cruise lines or ship owners means that in accidents, the rule in Kermarec applies but in cases involving violations committed by crew members towards passengers, the rules in the Brockett case applies.     Litigation Venue for Actions Occurring Aboard Cruise Ships             Most passenger tickets for cruise vacations include the forum selection clause printed in microscopic letters at the back of the ticket. Unknown to most passengers, the forum selection clause is important in cases of actions against the cruise ship because the clause controls the venue for litigating any action arising from the contract of transportation. The venue of action then determines the law that applies in the determination of the case. The state or location from which the cruise ship departs from is usually designated as the forum for filing court actions regardless of whether the cause of action occurred within the geographic jurisdiction of the court in the port of departure or if these occur in the high seas. (Booth, 1999) Objections against the applicability of forum selection clauses have been made by plaintiffs due to the difficulty they entail in complying with the clause especially if the cause of action was committed in the port of arrival in the high seas. However, these challenges have failed due to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shute v Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. (1990) held that in applying the test of reasonableness, there are two major reasons for holding as reasonable non-negotiated forum selection contract terms. One is the fact that cruise ships carry passengers from different places and it would be impractical or unreasonable to have to hold the cruise ship liable for accidents, injuries or crimes in different court jurisdictions. The other is the ability of the forum selection clause to minimize the monetary and time cost involved in the filing of venue motions. This also benefits passengers through the reduction of fares because the cruise ship does not expect to incur these costs.               However, there are certain claims that plaintiffs may bring out in court to question the applicability of the forum selection clause. In Johnson v Commodore Cruise Lines (1995) distinguished the spheres covered by court determination. The case held that intentional torts committed by crew members fall outside of the determination power of the court because these acts do not involve mishaps but alleged intentional acts. The distinction was used to limit the applicability of adhesion clauses covering the venue of court action, time for filing court action, and the type of actions to be filed against the cruise lines.             Another basis for questioning the applicability of the forum selection clause is the decision of the court in the Johnson case interpreting the laws covering cruise ship liability as not providing or allowing for the limitation in the liability of cruise lines. In the case, the plaintiff filed an action for the intentional imposition of emotional distress together with related wrongs through the act of the cruise lines in conspiring in order to cover-up the rape of a passenger by a crew member while aboard the cruise ship. The contract of adhesion provides for a shorter period of filing actions. The court held that despite the rule provided in the Shute case, legislation on liability does not include in its contemplation allowing the limitation of the liability for intentional misconduct. This means that in the case of forum selection, the plaintiff may still file venue motions in instances where the application of the forum selection clause results to the limitation of the liability of the cruise ship for intentional wrongs.             Still, another basis for questioning the applicability of the forum selection clause in passenger tickets is the unfairness of its application because the plaintiff was not given the opportunity to rebuff the clause without forfeiting financial claims. This may be raised in instances where the passenger learns of the forum selection clause after purchasing the ticket and the passenger was not given the opportunity to reject the contractual provision without incurring any penalties. In Corna v American Hawaii Cruises, Inc. (1992) the forum selection clause was not enforced due to the finding that this worked unfairly to the plaintiff. In Kalman v Cunard Line, Ltd. (1995) the motion to dismiss the venue motions was denied while considering the resolution of the factual dispute. In the case of Cross v Kloster Cruise Lines, Ltd. (1995) the forum selection clause was enforced but the cruise line incurred penalty due to the non-compliance with the period of notice provided in the contract of adhesion.     Conclusion             Cruise ship companies incur liability for accidents, physical injuries and crimes committed aboard the vessel. The liability of cruise ships emanate from the tort principle of strict liability they have for occurrences violating the right of passengers to a safe transportation. Cruise ships are deemed as common carriers so that the principle of strict liability accruing to all common carriers applies to cruise ship companies. Strict liability refers to the absolute liability of cruise lines for accidents, physical injuries and crimes committed on board the ship causing harm and encroaching on the safety of passengers. Moreover, the principle of standard of reasonable care also accrues to cruise ship companies covering personal injury cases filed by passengers.             Since cruise ship companies incur liability for accidents and crimes committed onboard their ships, a relevant issue is the venue for filing claims. The US Supreme Court has provided in the Shute case that forum selection clauses in contracts of adhesion are reasonable. This means that actions involving cruise ship transportation should be filed in the venue specified in the contract. However, there are certain exceptions to the rule such as the action involving intentional acts, the unfairness of clause’s application, and the specific circumstances of the case.

Cruise Ship Liability: Passenger Rights & Remedies for Rape & Injuries in the High Seas

Cruise Ship Liability: Passenger Rights & Remedies for Rape & Injuries in the High Seas Rape & Injuries on Cruise...

Professionalism and Commercialism of Legal Practice

Professionalism and Commercialism of Legal Practice               Profession is defined as an occupation in which a professed knowledge on some subject, field or science is applied; a vocation or career, especially one that involves prolonged training and a formal qualification. A professional is defined as a person belonging to, or proper to a profession, relating to, connected with, or befitting a profession or calling; preliminary or necessary to the practice of a profession engaged in a profession, especially one requiring  special skill or training. Lawyers were first as professionals in the mid 13th century. This development of law as a body or discipline of coherent learning, the emergence of universities  teaching law, that is, Roman law, in Western Europe, the formalized training and examination of law students, the formation of a body of qualified practitioners and the emergence of courts with complex procedures requiring expert knowledge. The observance of ethical guideline and enforcement of ethical principles was, and remains, the essence of a profession. Such ethical principles are the manifested structure of the minimum required service to the community. The lawyer’s duty to the court include: o   A duty of full disclosure of the relevant law o   A duty of candor not to mislead the Court as to fact, nor to knowingly permit a client to do so o   A duty to prepare the case properly and to know the relevant law o   A duty to refuse to permit the commencement or continuance of baseless proceedings or proceedings brought for an ulterior purpose, such as malice, or to exploit the advantage of Court delay o   A duty to exercise care, by testing any instructions, before making allegations of misconduct against anyone o   A duty to assist improper conduct, whether illegal to dishonest or other wise improper The practice of both civil and criminal litigation is replete with rules and expectations of behavior of lawyers which run directly contrary to the apparent immediate interests of the client – the obligations of discovery, the obligations of disclosure, the obligations to isolate and co-operate to address only substantive issues in dispute to assist the court to further the just, quick and cheap resolution of conflict. These duties arise from the need of society to make the best use of scarce public resources and to make them available to all in society. Litigation is generally expensive, time consuming and stressful. The profession has a duty to assist in minimizing these features and in the efficient operation of the judicial system. The courts are becoming increasingly aggressive and assertive in their demands for efficient and co-operative conduct of litigation. These broader duties to the public and the administration of justice operate hand in glove with duties of the lawyer of good faith and fidelity of the highest order: the fiduciary in equity. These duties include the duty of honesty, of full disclosure,13 of not placing oneself in a position of conflict of duty with duty to another or with personal interest (other than the fee properly bargained for). It is the fiduciary duty and the recognition of its relevance to everyday aspects of legal practice in both organization of the lawyer’s firm and the conduct of the retainer that gives the foundation for important aspects of the expectations, and potential enforcement, of behavior, at least to the extent of the relationship of loyalty and service to the client. A free civil society has a basal social need for skilled, honest, articulate lawyers who recognize that their advice must be fearless and based in learning and skill. That recognition must also be that their place is to assist in the vindication and protection of the rights of their clients under the rule of law by the administration of justice to which administration, ultimately, they owe their paramount duty. This is all familiar to you, I know. But to express it thus highlights, I think, what has always brought many young people to the study and the practice of law. They recognize that, as well as the opportunity to earn a living at a reasonable level, they will become part of an essential functioning institution of society of great importance. This recognition helps instill in the profession, in each new generation, the required idealism and sense of service necessary for the natural, organic regeneration of the ideal of service and of the intuitive adherence to the ethics and principles of the profession which are essential to the administration of justice and the healthy functioning of a free society.

Professionalism and Commercialism of Legal Practice

Professionalism and Commercialism of Legal Practice Profession is defined as an occupation in which a professed knowle...

A Case Study on the US Court System

Introduction             According to Socrates, the law is made for the purpose of uniting the people and if those laws were not followed, the purpose will remain impossible. A law is a guideline that governs the people of one country that has a limited scope but defines every subject matter. By imposing such laws, the person who were accused and said that made something that is against the provisions of the law are subject to face the consequences. Courts A court is a body, often a governmental institution, with the authority to adjudicate legal disputes and dispense civil, criminal, or administrative justice in accordance with rules of law. In common law and civil law states, courts are the central means for dispute resolution, and it is generally understood that all persons have an ability to bring their claims before a court. Similarly, those accused of a crime have the right to present their defense before a court1. Court System in United States The U.S. court system is divided into two administratively separate systems, the federal and the state, each of which is independent of the executive and legislative branches of government. Such a dual court system is a heritage of the colonial period. By the time the U.S. Constitution had first mandated (1789) the establishment of a federal judiciary, each of the original Thirteen Colonies already had its own comprehensive court system based on the English model. Thus, the two systems grew side by side and came to exercise exclusive jurisdiction in some areas and overlapping, or concurrent, jurisdiction in others2. Dual Court System As a result of this historical evolution, a dual system of state and federal courts exists today. Therefore, federal and state courts may have concurrent jurisdiction over specific crimes. The court system in the United States is based upon the principle of federalism. Jurisdiction in this context simply means the ability of the court to enforce laws and punish individuals who violate those laws3. The Federal Court System Of the two systems, the federal is by far the less complicated. According to Article III of the Constitution, "The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." In accordance with this directive, the federal judiciary is divided into three main levels. The highest court in the federal system is the Supreme Court of the United States, the only federal court explicitly mandated by the Constitution. The high court may review decisions made by the U.S. courts of appeals, and it may also choose to hear appeals from state appellate courts if a constitutional or other federal issue is involved. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in a limited number of cases, including those that involve high-ranking diplomats of other nations or those between two U.S. states. In addition, the federal judiciary maintains a group of courts that handle certain limited types of disputes. Included among such special federal courts are the Court of Federal Claims, which adjudicates monetary claims against the U.S. government, and the Tax Court4. The State Court Systems The system of state courts is quite diverse; virtually no two states have identical judiciaries. In general, however, the states, like the federal government, have a hierarchically organized system of general courts along with a group of special courts. The lowest level of state courts, often known generically as the inferior courts, may include any of the following: magistrate court, municipal court, justice of the peace court, police court, traffic court, and county court. Such tribunals, often quite informal, handle only minor civil and criminal cases. More serious offenses are heard in superior court, also known as state district court, circuit court, and by a variety of other names. The superior courts, usually organized by counties, hear appeals from the inferior courts and have original jurisdiction over major civil suits and serious crimes such as grand larceny. It is here that most of the nation's jury trials occur. The highest state court, usually called the appellate court, state court of appeals, or state Supreme Court, generally hears appeals from the state superior courts and, in some instances, has original jurisdiction over particularly important cases. A number of the larger states, such as New York, also have intermediate appellate courts between the superior courts and the state's highest court. Additionally, a state may have any of a wide variety of special tribunals, usually on the inferior court level, including juvenile court, divorce court, probate court, family court, housing court, and small-claims court5. Unification of Court System and Effectiveness The unification of court system will create a great disturbance in the system of the court. Both the federal and state court directs their cases into the last resort which is the Supreme Court. In the America, the Supreme Court hears the appeals from federal and state courts. It has original jurisdiction in cases in which a state is a party, and in cases involving American ambassadors, ministers, and consuls.             By the US Supreme Court, the functions of the federal and state court are treated as one. Into the deep case, every court system is not presented as a solid material but rather, it should broke down into pieces and study each fiber. In fact, there are many jurors that mastered different cases and specifically depending on the system above them. The main purpose of separating the system is to experience their functions free. The unification of the system will only cause a sluggish process in solving many cases. The cases that the prosecutors and judges are facing are based on different levels. If there were happened the union of the court systems toward the monolithic inspiration, the effectiveness will be minimal and the worst is the value of it cannot be perceived. Sentencing Goals and Rationales There are three and sometimes overlapping areas in categorizing the goals of sentencing6. * To restore truth in the sentencing process so the public knows how much time an offender will serve in prison. * To increase the proportion of a sentence that is served in prison, generally to percent, and/or to eliminate parole release as a means of reducing crime by keeping offenders incarcerated for a longer period of time. * To control the use of prison space, often in conjunction with a guidelines system, so decision makers know in advance what the impact of sentencing will be on prison populations.             The first goal is considered as the primary goal in sentencing. It is logically placed in the first row to make it elaborate to the readers about the main concept of it. The public will be aware in the sentencing process that might help them avoid committing such criminal offense. The scope of offense will be applicable to all specially when the prisoners will only serve the correctional in the minimum offense and the death will be the worst consequence that an accused might face. In short, the penalty that a person might face is depends on how heavy the case is.             The circumstance that this kind of goal might have is very dim. It is because the greatest inhibitions of the other goals are based on the first one. As long as the main goal is alive, the other goal or its sub-goals will follow. Goals are created to be the basis in making criminal punishments, both for the good of the accused party and the one who set the suit case. Sometimes, the variations of different goals will make the sentencing process more effective. The impact of the sentencing will result to the satisfaction of the justice. Conclusion The relationship between state courts and federal courts is quite complicated. Although the United States Constitution and federal laws override state laws where there is a conflict between federal and state law, state courts are not subordinate to federal courts. Rather, they are two parallel sets of courts with different often overlapping jurisdiction7.             The court systems are already defined into different works and exhibits different role in the justice. An attempt to harmonize the two types will need a big leap for change, for there are chances that they can be together but more often, one is useful if it works alone. References: 1.      Walker, D., (1980). Oxford Companion to Law, Oxford University Press, p. 301, ISBN 019866110X. 2.      The Columbia Encyclopedia (2007). Court System in the United States. Columbia University Press, New York. 6th edition p. 12111. 3.      Historical Context: The Principle of Federalism (2008). Chapter 2 The Criminal Justice System Continuum [Online] Available at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/assist/nvaa2002/chapter2_1.html [Accessed 14 Aug 2009]. 4.      Encyclopedia, Ibid., 5.      Encyclopedia, Ibid., 6.      Mauer, M., (1996). The Truth about Truth in Sentencing. Corrections Today. Vol. 58. No. 1. 7.      Consumer Crusade, Inc. v. Affordable Health Care Solutions, Inc., (2005) 121 P.3d 350.

A Case Study on the US Court System

Introduction According to Socrates, the law is made for the purpose of uniting the people and if those laws were not follo...

Top