Law

Post a two-paragraph summary of how the court system in your state compares to the United States court system

The Louisiana Court system is similar to the United States court system as both are comprised of courts vested with jurisdiction to take cognizance of cases and to interpret applicable laws promulgated by the legislature. In Louisiana, thejudicial branchis responsible for administering the laws of the state and resolving legal conflicts (Judicial Branch). In addition to this, both systems are divided into distinct courts, handling different types of disputes, in order to ensure a proper system of review of cases.

As can be gleaned from the court system of the United States, the courts are apportioned so as to include district courts, courts of appeals and the Supreme Court. This is the same system obtaining in Louisiana as district courts are likewise appointed as general jurisdiction courts to hear and decide criminal and civil matters. Courts of Appeals are likewise appointed to take cognizance of appeals instituted in relation to decisions and resolutions issued by district courts. Finally, both systems have a court of last resort, or the Supreme Court which is likewise vested with the power of general supervisory jurisdiction over all other courts (Judicial Branch).

Post a one-paragraph summary of the various functions of our criminal justice system.

The criminal justice system is one such system which deals with the administration and implementation of the criminal laws in force in the society. The basic purpose of the criminal justice system is to deal with those who commit or are accused of committing acts against individuals and societythat have been deemed to be crimes (Criminal Justice System Overview). The criminal justice system endeavors to keep the peace in the community by making sure that laws are observed and that those who violates the laws will be meted out with reasonable and proportionate penalties. In this regard, the system likewise works to safeguard the rights of those who are accused of crimes to make sure that proper procedure is followed in their prosecution and that penalties are imposed in accordance with the law.

Locate a newspaper or magazine article that discusses plea-bargaining and whether it is an asset or liability for the CJ system, or which discusses determinate and indeterminate sentencing. You may have to look a bit on the Internet, but they are out there. Try using the web sites given to you in your assignments. Post a two paragraph summary of the article.

The process of plea bargaining is often criticized in view of the fact that it sometimes prejudices the accused rather than assisting the proper disposition of criminal cases. It is likewise raised that in most cases involving plea bargaining, the accused is not afforded enough protection because instead of being aware of the importance of the process, the accused is more apprised of how the said process can shorten the process of trial. Some critics would say that the process of plea bargaining is sometimes utilized, not to the benefit of the accused, but to his detriment in instances where plea is entered simply for convenience.

Additionally, it is likewise advanced that plea-bargaining confuses the authority of one key player from another within the criminal justice system.  In one article, the Time mentioned that in plea bargaining it is generally the prosecutor and not the judge who in effect decides whether and for how long a defendant is going to jail (Is Plea Bargaining a Cop-Out), which should not be the case. In effect, the article is saying that plea bargaining extends the authority of prosecutors to the extent that it can somehow override the role of judges. In summary, it is the view that plea bargaining serves a purpose in facilitating criminal proceedings, but in this process, the rights of the accused, and the legal boundaries set by law, should likewise be considered and given primordial importance.

Explanation of the courts in your state that are the equivalent of the Texas Justice of the Peace Court and the Texas Municipal Court, and the similarities and differences of said courts.

 In Louisiana, cases handled by Justice of the Peace Courts are limited. Most of the cases taken cognizance by the said courts are those that involve minor infractions or violations, or those that are considered as non-felony criminal cases. This is similar to the Justice of the Peace in Texas as said judicial body is vested with original jurisdiction over Class C misdemeanor criminal cases, which are less serious minor offenses (Justice of the Peace). Louisiana Municipal Courts, on the other hand, generally handle and take cognizance of most violations of city ordinances and some state laws (Louisiana Courts). This is likewise similar to Municipal Courts in Texas as municipal courts in Texas are vested with original and exclusive jurisdiction with respect to violations and infractions involving city ordinances.

Summary of the Texas District Court, Texas Court of Appeals, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court, and a summary of the equivalent of each of these courts in your home state.

Texas District Courts are considered as the courts of general jurisdiction, and are assigned, as much as practicable, in each county in the state of Texas. The District courts have original jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving felony, divorce, title to land, election contests, civil matters in which the amount of money or damages involved is 200 or more, and other disputes in which jurisdiction is not vested in another court (District Courts). The Texas Courts of Appeals, on the other hand, are judicial bodies vested with intermediate appellate jurisdiction over cases decided by the Texas District Courts. There are fourteen (14) Courts of Appeals in Texas and each of such courts has jurisdiction in a specific geographical region or location within Texas (Courts of Appeals).

The Court of Criminal Appeals is considered as the court of last resort in respect of criminal cases.  In view of the same, judges of the said court are elected by the voters of the entire state, and said judges hold offices for terms of six years (Court of Criminal Appeals).  As regards civil matters or civil cases, it is the Texas Supreme Court which is considered as the court of last resort. In addition to this, the Texas Supreme Court is likewise vested under the law with administrative control over the State Bar of Texas and the authority to issue licenses to attorneys in Texas (Supreme Court).

In Louisiana, the District Courts may be considered as the equal of the Texas District Courts to the extent that both courts are courts of general jurisdiction, having original jurisdiction to hear and take cognizance of most civil and criminal matters instituted by parties. It is noteworthy, however, that Louisiana District Courts, unlike their counterparts in Texas,  do not have jurisdiction over cases involving the right to run for office or other public position, civil or political rights, and most issues of probate and succession (Judicial Branch). The Texas Courts of Appeals also have their own counterparts in Louisiana or the Louisiana Courts of Appeals. Similar to the Texas Courts of Appeals, Louisiana Courts of Appeals are also vested with appellate jurisdiction over civil cases and most of criminal cases brought before lower courts.

The Louisiana Supreme Court may be said to be the counterpart of two courts in Texas. In respect of criminal cases, the Louisiana Supreme Court is the equivalent of Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. As regards civil matters instituted by the parties, on the other hand, the Louisiana Supreme Court becomes the equivalent of Texas Supreme Court. It is worthy to point out that in its review of civil cases, the Louisiana Supreme Court takes into account the facts and the law of the case which is different from the procedure followed in its review of criminal cases where the Courts jurisdiction is limited only to questions of proper interpretation accorded the laws applied in the case (Judicial Branch).

List the felonies in your state and the misdemeanors. Explain the range of punishments for the various crimes.

Different Classes of Crimes
Crimes in Louisiana may be characterized or differentiated as follows felony, misdemeanors and minor offenses.

Examples of Crimes within Each Class
Examples of felonies are the following murder, treason, rape, arson, burglary and kidnapping (Classification of Crimes). Misdemeanors, as opposed to felonies, on the other hand, are those crimes which are considered as less violent in nature, and inflict a lesser of harm to other people and to society. Finally, minor offenses involve the commission of petty offenses, examples of which are infractions or violations of local laws and ordinances.

Punishment for Each Class
A felony is a crime that is considered serious and is punishable by imprisonment of more than one year. The penalty imposed for commission of misdemeanors is imprisonment of one year or less. Penalty imposed for commission of minor offenses constitute the payment of a fine or imprisonment for a short period of time.

When An Act Becomes A Crime
The Louisiana Revised Statutes define crime as that conduct which is defined as criminal in this Code, or in other acts of the legislature, or in the constitution of this state (Louisiana Revised Statutes section 147). Thus, for purposes of determining when an act becomes a crime, it is important to take note of the laws defining crimes within a certain jurisdiction. In Louisiana, the following are considered as criminal conduct which necessitates the imposition of penalty an act or a failure to act that produces criminal consequences, and which is combined with criminal intent or a mere act or failure to act that produces criminal consequences, where there is no requirement of criminal intent or  criminal negligence that produces criminal consequences (Louisiana Revised Statutes section 148). In this regard, it is noteworthy that an act becomes or constitutes a crime when the said act corresponds to those defined under the criminal laws of the applicable jurisdiction, in this case, Louisiana. In light with this, for purposes of properly determining whether an act constitutes a crime, it becomes imperative to take note of the laws defining crimes in the jurisdiction where such an act took place.

Review of the Case of Washington vs. Crenshaw.
The case of Washington vs. Crenshaw involves defenses of excuse in criminal cases, particularly the defense of insanity. The case began when Crenshaw caught his wife cheating on him with another man. Due to this discovery, Crenshaw killed his wife, then sought the assistance of hitchhikers to conceal the remains of his wife. Unfortunately, the hitchhikers reported the incident to the police, and Crenshaw was arrested and tried for murder in the first degree. During the trial, Crenshaw admitted the commission of the crime, but interposed as a defense his alleged insanity. He likewise made mention of the fact that based on his religious beliefs, it is right to kill ones wife if she has committed adultery. Despite the fact that Crenshaws medical history showed previous mental problems, the Trial Court nevertheless found him guilty. The Trial Court stated there could be no insanity if one had the knowledge of what is right and what is wrong at the time he committed the crime.

On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Trial Court. The Supreme Court held that insanity cannot be admitted as an excuse of defense if at the time of the commission of the crime, the offender had discernment that what he was doing was morally and legally wrong. In the case at bar, despite Crenshaws contention that his religion requires death of an adulterer as punishment, his personal belief that it was his duty to kill his wife does not exculpate him from legal responsibility for his acts (Washington vs. Crenshaw) as acts of cleaning up the scene of the crime to remove traces of his acts and his admission that taking the life of ones own wife is contradictory to societal norms prove that he was well aware that what he committed was not right.

Defenses of Justification and the case of Bishop vs. The State Of Georgia.
What rule does the court adopt in the use of force to protect homes Use of force to protect homes
In the case at bar, the Court held that the use of force to protect ones home is justified to the extent that said use of force was done when the inhabitant reasonably believes the entry is made for the purpose of committing a felony. Outside the same, or in the absence of reasonable belief that his abode is in imminent danger, one cannot be justified in using force to harm another.

Why does it reject the use of spring guns
The Court, citing the case of People vs. Ceballos, explained the wisdom behind its rejection of the use of spring guns by saying, allowing persons, at their own risk, to employ deadly mechanical devices imperils the lives of children, firemen and policemen acting within the scope of their employment, and others. Where the actor is present, there is always the possibility he will realize that deadly force is not necessary, but deadly mechanical devices are without mercy or discretion. Thus, due to the possibility that severe injury may be caused to someone who is innocent, the cause rejected the use of spring guns.

What facts bear on the question of justification here
The Court rejected the defense of Bishop that his act was justified since the spring gun was used in his pursuit of protecting his home. The Court said that the use of spring gun to protect ones home is justified only when the inhabitant reasonably believes that the entry is made by the other person for purposes of committing a felony. Naturally, a person would be justified in seeking to protect himself and his home when he feels that danger is on its way. The said principle, according to the Court, finds no application in the case of Bishop as there was nothing to justify any suspicion on the part of the defendant that his abode is in face of imminent danger since at the time that Freeman attempted to enter the trailer, Bishop was not at home.

Does the dissent have the better of the argument in maintaining that the law should accept the use of spring guns
In justifying the use of spring guns, Justice Smith, in his dissent, reiterated the saying that every mans home is his castle. The dissent stated that in face of a reasonable expectation that another person might unlawfully enter his home to commit a crime, then the use of force is justified. For purposes of determining the reasonableness of using a deadly weapon, what should be looked into is the intent of the defendant at the time that he sets the spring gun, setting the chain of events leading to the death in motion, rather than to the time at which the victim is shot. Thus, in the case of Bishop, it is intimated by the dissent that the use of spring gun was justified as what should be controlling was the belief of Bishop at the time he set up the spring gun and not the time the gun went off and shot Freeman.
Whilst the dissent presents a sound argument in allowing the use of spring guns, it is advanced that for purposes of maintaining peace and avoiding undue injury, the majority opinion is given more credence. Regardless of the intentions of homeowners to keep their abodes from trespassers, it cannot be denied that the use of deadly weapons may cause undue injury to those who may be innocent. In this regard, the majority opinion is correct in holding that in the absence of a reasonable belief that an unlawful entry is to be made for purposes of committing a felony, homeowners are not justified to utilize force especially with the use of deadly weapons.