The State of Law in America

The State of Law in America

Introduction

The plight of the ‘countryman’ and his denial of full and fair hearing before the law is characteristic of the modern American judicial system. A crippling emptiness also typifies the current American law system.  In this view, the American legal systems have regularly failed to use their specified pretensions effectively. As such, these laws always achieve the opposite of what they pledge. Thus, in light of Kafka’s law, as outlined in the case of the countryman, this paper makes the argument that the present American criminal justice system takes on most of the ‘Before the law’ features. Like Kafka’s terrifying revelation, much of the United States’ criminal law, as well as procedures, remain enigmatic, bureaucratic, and pervasive. Besides, most of the contemporary court cases entail police interrogations followed by plea bargains, where the courts’ work is only to set mostly predetermined verdicts to people already assumed as being guilty. Likewise, this paper also argues that modern American law also depends heavily on deception in handing offenders and jurors to restrict the function of defense while increasingly dispensing justice without the shield of formal procedures.

Limitations of America’s Modern Law

Today, what is seen as ideal a criminal system in the United States of America could not be the reality. As various pieces of literature point out, almost all the businesses in the nation’s criminal justice happen behind closed contours and doors. A few of the criminal cases often go to trial, with the majority get disposed of through what is known as plea bargaining. Also, though most thought as central to America’s criminal system, juries have become eclipsed by many inefficiencies and bureaucratic procedures. In trials, the law also appears to have become arcane and inapplicable. In essence, neither do these laws govern trial proceedings nor the specific cases and charges presented against offenders. Besides being unconceivable, these laws are also often abundant: there are officers, detectives, defendants, judges, and others in service everywhere in the process. Equally, many of the legal organs, organizations, and institutions in this system are usually staffed by people who lack freedom even as they dominate the lives of people seeking justice.

Hans and Albertson (2002) argued that in 2003, George Bush had to invoke the failings witnessed in the civil jury system as a rationale for initiating changes in the country’s civil justice system. According to President Bush, the increasing jury awards posed a significant danger to danger to insurance costs. Among several of the changes that the President initiated included decreasing the time it took for patients to sue their doctors in addition to a limit on the punitive damages sustained (Hans & Albertson, 2002). According to Hans and Albertson (2002), the President’s intended to attack the functioning of the civil jury in the country. Besides, the President also noted that many denunciations existed since the 80s, saying that broad tort reformation could help to initiate changes in America’s civil system (Hans & Albertson, 2002). For the President, juries in America failed to do their work and often did vainly helped in differentiating false and legitimate litigations. Instead, as the President noted, they only worked to increase the problem by their dubious undertakings (Hans & Albertson, 2002).

In the same way, Hans and Albertson (2002) also identified many criticisms as well as limitations. The first criticism they found was that most of the civil juries were more considerate to complainants who brought litigations while becoming hostile to insurance as well as corporate defendants. The second criticism they found was that jurors had serious issues understanding the trial evidence, legal instructions, and compound lawsuits that demanded expert handing and witnesses. They also found that most of the compensatory awards given by juries were flawed and perceived as unreliable. Moreover, they also noted that juries’ involvement in punitive damages became under intensive attacks by diverse groups and individuals in America. As for Hans and Albertson (2002), most jurors determined punitive damages in unusual and illogical ways. According to Hans and Albertson (2002), many of the juries in America were incompetent to translate their sentence desires into dollar figures moderately and regularly, and that they considered legally incongruous factors.

On Jury bias, Hans and Albertson (2002) argued that several commenters asserted that jury biases worked to undercut the robustness of the local system and decision-making processes. They argued that juror’s attitudes in the justice process had a significant impact due to widely and publicized misconducts, including in corporate settings such as Enron and other firms. After many surveys and findings from different sources, Hans and Albertson (2002) concluded that juries in American had numerous problems. They also deducted that juries were often compassionate in many cases. In light of jury awards, they also determined that they created gross overestimations of awards. More shortcomings of juries are also given in the excerpts from Cates and McIntosh, 2001). They argued that while jurors were nonprofessional as compared to layers as well as judges, they made a pertinent part of the American judicial system.

Cates and McIntosh (2001) also asserted that because many of the court cases were determined and plea-bargained, jurors did not play a critical function in the real world of the American criminal law like judges and lawyers. Even with this reality, especially with the limited roles of jurors in the American criminal law, Cates and McIntosh (2001) argued that most of the actual hearings were jury trials. They also claimed during the ancient times, nearly 200 years ago, juries played vital functions and were regarded as the genuine masters of societies. In the present time, they argued that many forces and institutions were calling for the abolition of juries from the American civil system because they failed to discharge their duties as required. For many years, comprised of white people, the juries remained biased and denied other groups of people in the society their rights and freedoms. Cates and McIntosh (2001) also argued that the white majority juries often criminalized African-Americans and failed to implicate whiles for criminal offenses, even when such crimes were committed. Cates and McIntosh (2001) equally argue that while juries were created to serve the interests of the people, they were often inclined to the wealthy and upper-class people. According to Cates and McIntosh (2001), juries become more like the mob, frequently feared by people as they increasingly deviated from their original law or constitutional design.

Similarly, Cates and McIntosh (2001) continued to argue that juries did not always make people proud. Over many centuries, the juries continuously failed to deliver on their legal duties and obligations. For example, Cates and McIntosh (2001) noted that both the criminal and civil cases made the jury something that was regarded as a judicial anomaly. Cates and McIntosh (2001) also affirmed that many of the modern jury critics contended that rather than representing the people and the palladium of a free government, juries increasingly represented obstacles to real fairness and justice. Additionally, Cates and McIntosh (2001) established that judges and other legal professionals expressed similar sentiments that juries lacked the required intellectual abilities in light of gradually composite forms of evidence. In other words, Cates and McIntosh (2001) described juries as inefficient anachronisms and the luxury of the democratic illusion that people could no longer afford.

In the case of Peter Zenger, a German immigrant depicted a situation where a jury was utterly reluctant to apply the law. It also showed one of the earliest American examples of jury nullification, where jurors willingly dismiss judges’ decisions. In particular, Zenger’s pardon and subsequent acquittal lead to the First Amendment. Immediately after the jury made its verdict, many people resisted and condemned the charges brought against Zenger (Linder, 2001). While this case helped to shape the freedom of free speech in America, Zenger was regarded as a rogue and had faced several previous suits on different accounts. However, the cause also showed the height of human rights infringement. For instance, Zenger had stayed in prison for nearly nine months before his trial.

Equally, Zenger’s trial also depicted the political class and law enforcers in a negative light. Zenger ran a successful newspaper and published many stories, but the Cosby’s story brought a turning point for press freedom in America. Zenger had accused Cosby of aiding the French to deprive the people of New York of their privileges and plotting to make them slaves. Zenger’s also included several advertisements that ridiculed Cosby’s actions. Intending to avenge, Cosby used his power to fight back and attempted to silence Zenger’s newspaper by asking the jury to charge him against seditious libel. His efforts to get the courts, the New York colonial assembly, and jury failed as all turned him down. He later turned to his council, which issued a warrant of arrest against Zenger. This council set an extremely higher bail for Zenger to have him remain in jail (Linder, 2001). Clearly, Crosby’s efforts illustrated a rotten system, where the most powerful could use power to influence the judicial system’s decision.

Since Zenger’s, press freedom in American has thrived, and different rights groups have developed over time. Notably, the crime of seditious libel no longer exists in the United States. While, like Zenger’s trial, officials can now file cases against people and organizations, such claims only succeed with actual malice in the context. Even with these developments, the American criminal justice is not wholly free from external influence and malice charges on individuals. There are still many accounts of people who suffer in jails and incarceration areas for unfounded accusations and political influence.

In Orwell’s (1936) story ‘Shooting an Elephant,’ he presents an outrageous account of a colonial officer who killed an elephant. By telling this story, he reflected and drew on his life experiences of killing an elephant in Burma. While the elephant said to terrorize people and cause harm, the narrator has grave reservations about its death. He shot it because he did not want people to consider him weak (Orwell, 1936). As a colonial police officer, the narrator shows the effects of imperialism, not only on those oppressed but also to the oppressors. This story shows how the police can be used to suppress and curtail the rights of others. For him, he lived in a lawlessness society, where human life had no value. For instance, the narrator says that he found several human bodies, people who had been brutally murdered. Whereas he served a regime that dehumanized people, he did not like what he saw and experienced. Even though he was fortunate to work as a law enforcement officer, he attests that most of the laws were meant for the benefit of imperialists, not for the common good of locals (Orwell, 1936). Perhaps, Orwell’s Burma society is reminiscent of American life, where many people have fallen from shootings and, sometimes, oppressive governments. For instance, in 2015, the Washington Post reported that the police had brutally killed more than 62 people in America. It is off-putting that the majority of these people did not have weapons or pose a threat to the police, but they were shot in cold blood. In redeeming the American law, Tocqueville held that responsible social institutions such as families, societies, as well as religious leaders could help to preserve the United States’ freedoms and rights. He also noted that American law experts such as lawyers could help to ensure that judgments on people do not turn into mob rules. Tocqueville mostly loved and appreciated the protections of region and law, but was also worried that without proper checks of governments or politicians, it is difficult to achieve justice and fairness.

References

Cates, C. L., & McIntosh, W. V. (2001). Law and the Web of Society. Georgetown University Press.

Hans, V. P., & Albertson, S. (2002). Empirical research and civil jury reform. Notre Dame L. Rev., 78, 1497.

Linder, D. (2001). The Trial of John Peter Zenger: An Account. Available at SSRN 1021258.

Orwell, G. (1936). Shooting an elephant. New Writing, 2, 501-06.

The Washington Post. (2015). Retrieved 5 April 2020, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/.