Which of the following would provide a counterexample to the claim that all swans are white?

The previous section has briefly explained why judicial independence is important for maintaining judges' impartiality and the rule of law. This section now focuses on how judicial independence can be guaranteed in its fundamental aspects (external, internal, institutional and individual independence). Various mechanisms are possible, and a range of examples are provided to encourage debate and develop critical thinking.

Judicial independence is a multifaceted concept. There are different institutional, legal and operational arrangements that in abstracto are designed to ensure judicial independence, and they can work differently depending on the historical, political, legal and social context in which the judiciary operates. Therefore, there is not an ideal model of implementing judicial independence in the sense that one-size-fits-all. Judicial independence is - in more concrete terms - the result of a combination of different conditions, measures, checks and balances, that can vary from one country to another. Every country has to find its own balance.

In some countries, for example, judicial independence is basically secured through a self-governing body or council (composed mainly of judges) which is in charge of all the decisions concerning judges' recruitment/nomination, career, transfer and discipline. This occurs, for example, in France, Italy, Mongolia, Nigeria, Poland, Romania, Spain, and Ukraine. In other countries, such as Kenya, South Africa, India, Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, India, Kenya, South Africa, the United States, there is no equivalent body, and judicial independence is thereby secured through various other mechanisms. Therefore, what is deemed to be an essential measure in some countries may be not considered as such in others. This reveals rather different views on the institutional means needed to protect judicial independence.

The process of defining the institutional requirements of judicial independence has by no means come to an end. For example, the oldest institution of the British constitutional system, the office of Lord Chancellor, has been recently redesigned in an effort to bring about a clearer separation between the branches of the State, and to enhance the independence of the judiciary (see the UK Constitutional Reform Act, 2005; Shetreet and Turenne, 2013).

The protection of judicial independence is usually considered as including various aspects that operate on different levels: external and internal independence, and institutional and individual independence. External independence refers to the independence of the judiciary from the political branches (Executive and Legislative power), as well as any other nonjudicial actor. Although there must, of necessity, be some relations between the judiciary and the political powers (especially the Executive), as stated in the Commentary on the Bangalore Principles "such relations must not interfere with the judiciary's liberty in adjudicating individual disputes and in upholding the law and values of the Constitution" (2007, para. 26). Internal independence focuses on guarantees aimed at protecting individual judges from undue pressure from within the judiciary: from other judges and, above all, from high ranking judges. High ranking judges may, for example, exert supervising power over courts' administration (depending on the organization of the judicial system), but they must not - in any way - influence the substance of judges' decision-making.

Institutional independence pertains to the institutional and legal arrangements designed ex ante by the State to shield judges from undue pressure and influence. From this point of view, the most important factors concern the way in which judges are recruited, evaluated, and disciplined, the governance of the judiciary and courts' administration.

5 0

2 years ago

At which stage of a criminal trial does the judge analyze evidence and ask the defendant to enter a plea?

svlad2 [7]

Steps in a Criminal Case

A Crime Is Allegedly Committed

Police are notified and investigate an alleged crime by interviewing victims, witnesses, suspects, gathering physical evidence, taking photographs, measuring the crime scene, and taking fingerprint and DNA samples if available.

A Person Is Arrested

Police may arrest a suspect on the spot or if the officer has probable cause to believe a misdemeanor or felony was committed. The police may refer the case to the District Attorney’s Office suggesting potential charges.

The District Attorney’s Office Reviews The Case

A prosecuting attorney will determine whether a person should be charged with a crime by thoroughly reviewing all reports and records, witness statements, and the suspect’s prior criminal or traffic record. The criminal case is either charged or declined.

Criminal Charges Are Issued Or Declined

If a case is charged, the prosecutor issues a criminal complaint charging the suspect with committing a misdemeanor, felony, or both. Persons charged with a misdemeanor may be able to post bail and be released from jail. Persons charged with a felony crime must wait for their initial appearance in Arraignment Court.

Initial Appearance

This is the first court hearing after someone has been arrested and charged with a crime. The judge or court commissioner informs the defendant what the charge(s) are, maximum penalty if convicted, and their rights to an attorney. If the defendant is still in jail, bail and any other conditions are set. Often a “No Contact Order” will be imposed, which prohibits the defendant from having any contact with a person who is a victim or a witness in the case.

Entering A Plea

In misdemeanor cases, the defendant is asked to enter a plea of guilty, not guilty or no contest. In felony cases, a date is set for a preliminary hearing.

Status Conference

A court hearing to determine the status, or progress and direction, of a case.

Preliminary Hearing

This is an evidentiary hearing in which the District Attorney’s office must prove to a judge or court commissioner that there is enough evidence to believe the defendant committed a felony.

Arraignment

A criminal defendant's first appearance on the formal charges before a judge. The defendant is formally charged and enters a plea of guilty, not guilty, or no contest. This occurs at the initial appearance in misdemeanor cases and at some point following bind over at preliminary hearings in felony cases.

Pretrial Conference / Court Settlement Conference

A court hearing to resolve issues in advance of a trial; courts sometimes will accept entry of pleas of guilty or no contest at these hearings.

Plea Hearing

A hearing at which the defendant's responds to a criminal charge by entering a plea of guilty, not guilty or no contest. A plea agreement or plea bargain is an agreement between the prosecutor and the defendant for the defendant to plead guilty or no contest under certain terms and conditions, which must be approved by the judge, to prevent going to trial.

Trial

A hearing at which evidence is presented to a judge or jury to determine whether the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A defendant may be found guilty of all, some, or none of the criminal charges.

Sentencing

A court’s decision as to the penalties appropriate for crimes established by convictions.

Appeal

A defendant may appeal their case after sentencing.

Post-Conviction Motion Hearing

A defendant may be revoked for not following the terms of his probation. Post-Conviction Motions may be filed to deal with any post-conviction issues.

3 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

1. Assume at maximum production levels, Japan can produce either 100 CDs or 500 DVDs. The U.S. can produce either 90 CDs or 30 D

andrey2020 [161]

Answer:

CDs or 500 DVDs. The U.S. can produce either 90 CDs or 30 DVDs.

Explanation:

5 0

3 years ago