Difference between republic and democracy
Republic
A republic can be said to be a government that does not have a monarch. The other definition is that it is a form of government in which the affairs of the state are a matter of the public and the public officers are usually elected and not appointed. Nepal became a federal democratic republic in the first half of the 21st century after 240 years under the monarch. The republic is usually a sovereign state but there are some instances where there are sub-sovereign states. Good examples of republic states are the United States, Russia and France. In a republic state the head of the state is usually the president (Beckeret al, 2002). The first country to start having a president as the head of start was the United States of America. When the president is the head of the state and the government then this is referred to as the presidential system.
The full presidential system causes the president to have control over the central political role and authority. In this government, sometimes the legislature is usually the one who is dominant thus makes the presidents work more ceremoniously. Countries with dominant legislature are India and Germany. The semi-presidential systems consist of the head of government such as the prime minister but the president is still the active head of the state or country. Elections are conducted in the republic states either directly or indirectly. In the states where there is a parliamentary system the elections is conducted in the parliament where the president is elected. There are some republic states that have the same monarch system of passing down their leadership to family members such as North Korea. There are also some states that have elective monarch just as the republic states such as Thailand (Schrems, 2007, p.206).
Democracy
This is the form of government in which all citizens who are eligible are able to be involved in the election process by either vying for a seat or voting and also in the process creation of laws. In the past a democratic citizen usually came from the elite families therefore, they formulated laws that will only benefit them. In a democratic state the people are the ones who are controlling their leaders and whenever their leaders start misbehaving they are able to speak out freely without any fear. There are direct democracy and the representative democracy. In the direct democracy the citizens have power to be actively involved in the decision makings of the government. A good example of a country with direct democracy is Switzerland. The representative democracy the citizens are still powerful but through the elected representatives they are the ones who are indirectly exercising political powers.
This is also called a republic democracy (Larry & Marc, 2006, p.168). The candidates who win the elections are supposed to have a majority of the voters. There are some members of the representative democracy who at times incorporate the direct democracy when it comes to the referendum. The representatives are supposed to act in the best interest of the people who elected them but at times the representative will act according to what they seem is best. This at times makes people wonder if representative democracy is indeed a democracy. In the general election the president is elected freely and fairly by the citizens. The president controls both the government, cabinet and the state. The president elected has to serve the people for a particular period and cannot exceed it. The legislature cannot remove the president and neither can the president remove anyone from the legislature.
The United States is a republic state because the government does not have a direct democracy. This means that the people are indirectly controlling the government. The country is also being represented by the leaders whom the people have chosen. The president is the head of state and is usually elected by the people. The United States is said to be the first state to have a president under a republic state. In the indirect elections of the president that usually occur in the United States the Electoral College is the one that conforms to the concept of the republic. The state is not being ruled by a foreign country.
Federalism
Federalism is the concept in which the powers of the government are constitutionally divided into constituent politics and the central governing authority. Federalism is more like the democratic rule because the powers are being shared between the state government and the national government. This is what is being called the federation. The federal government is said to be more superior to the state government (Kelemen, 2005). A good example of this phrase is that the state will not be able to formulate a law that will contradict that of the federal government. The significance of federalism is that it is used in designing and redesigning the constitution. The federal constitutional systems have been able to combine the three governments which are the states, local and federal government.
The United States is made up of fifty states that have the federal government. The federal government is made up of three branches which are the executive, the legislature and the judiciary that get their powers through the American constitution, the president and the courts. These branches are also defined by the acts of the congress where the executive departments are created and the courts which are inferior are formulated by the supreme courts. After the US civil wars the federal government powers has increased but the legislature is still dominant but also through the constitution interpretations by the courts. The constitution has made it possible for the congress to have power especially in article 1, section 8 (Newman, 2010). Some of the powers granted to the congress are to collect and to levy taxes.
They are also able to create federal courts which are inferior to the Supreme Court, they can have an army which they support and raise, they have the right to formulate laws that will execute their powers, they are able to make laws that regulate the land and the naval forces and they have the power to discipline militia organizations. The tenth amendment of the constitution it was made under the principles of federalism. This amendment is used to provide the federal government with powers that was previously not granted by the constitution and those powers are not prohibited by the state (Calabresi & Prakash, 1994). There is a connection between the article 1 section 8 and the tenth amendment because both enable the federal government to have more powers compared to before when the constitution was just formed.
Reasonable expectations of privacy
The reasonable expectations of privacy are a test formulated in order to define the applicability of the privacy protections under the fourth amendment in the constitution. This test is similar to that of the right of privacy. The reasonable expectations of privacy it aids in enabling whether a person’s search and seizure by the police is legit or not. In reasonable expectation of privacy there are two types which are the subjective and legitimate expectation of privacy. The legitimate or reasonable expectation of privacy is recognized by the public or society. There are places in a society that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy such as a person’s home or residency, hotel room and public places that have privacy like the public restrooms. There are places where the person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as public areas that does not require privacy such as on the streets. The case that brought about this idea was that of Katz V. United states that happened in 1967. Justice Harlan issued a test that was later adopted by the Supreme Court so as to determine whether a search conducted by the police goes against the fourth amendment.
In the fourth amendment there are two clauses which ensure the people are protected against unreasonable searches from the government and police while the second clause states about the requirements for a warrant which has to be issued with a probable cause which should be supported by the oath of affirmation. In the first clause in order for a person to reach that requirements they are supposed to have kept an evidence in a manner that there is privacy but when they conceal information to a source who is a not a snoop then they are liable to not get this test. The second clause a person should be analyzed objectively. If the person has not kept the evidence in a private place then they are liable to get search warrants. In 2010, the case between Warshak and the United States the court ruled that people had reasonable expectations of privacy when it came to their emails. This is the only court that has ever ruled about the privacy of emails. The congress has enacted laws that will have restrictions against the monitoring of phone numbers and individual’s calls.
Levels of proof continuum
Reasonable suspicion
In the cause of Terry V. Ohio in 1968, the Supreme Court ruled that a reasonable suspicion should not be based on a hunch. When there is a probable cause then it is important for the investigator to stop and search thoroughly in order to get more evidence. Seizure of properties of people by the police should follow the fourth amendment. The police officer who is conducting the investigation should have a warrant which is given when there is enough evidence to prove a reasonable suspicion of crime is taking place or is about to take place. This is very crucial for the police officer so that they are not limiting the rights of the person. When in the trial the police officer who was conducting the investigation should have logical explanation of why they pursued the suspect and the seizure of the suspect’s properties. The term stop and detention in the criminal investigation is used in order for the police officer to be able to look into all the evidence provided in order for them to confirm or dispel the suspect’s criminal intent (Cooper, 2003, p.3). The suspect who is in custody if proved to be innocent they should be released immediately but when found to be suspicious then the police should continue to investigate further for more evidence. The further the investigation goes it may lead the investigation to a probable cause to arrest an individual.
Reasonable to believe
This standard of proof was created during the case of Arizona V. Gant when the court applied that this should only be used in vehicle searches. This is because when the police officers have arrested a suspect there must be a reasonable belief that the vehicle has more evidence. When there is no belief that the vehicle has any evidence then the police officers have no right to search the vehicle. There are many people who do not know the meaning of this phrase therefore most courts do not use it instead the use the phrase reasonable suspicion (Cooper, 2003, p.3).
Probable cause
Probable cause is referred to as the suspicion by the arresting officer under the circumstances and facts that the individual might have committed a crime or is about to. There are probable causes that will make a police officer arrest someone such as there is enough trustworthy evidence of information that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime. Examples of searches done by the police officers on suspected criminals are pat and frisk down which is done in order to protect the police and the people near in case the suspect has a weapon (Herring, 2004). There are many reasons that would cause a police officer to stop a person and check for weapon such as the appearance of a person, the time and the place in which the person is in, the proximity in which a crime has been committed in a certain area, the reputation of the individual in an area, the description of a vehicle that was considered to have been involved in a crime, the experience of the police officer and the area in which a person is found that is well known for crimes. This phrase was introduced by the courts in 1989 in the case between the United States V. Sokolow. This meant that there should be evidence that will cause a probable cause for one to be arrested.
Some credible evidence
This is considered to be one of the least reliable proofs that will cause a person to be arrested. This is usually used in some states by the child protective services. The term some credible evidence is what leads to further investigations that will lead to probable cause. With this standard of proof it usually does not look at conflicting evidence. This evidence is taken to the court the way it is in the allegations against a suspect (Cooper, 2003, p.3).
Proof beyond reasonable doubt
This is the proof in which it is reached when a reasonable person who is a police officer believes firmly that the investigation the route is taking is true. This standard is the highest ranked and is only used in the criminal cases. There are people who believe that this proof is used because there is no other evidence that can state otherwise. When the proof is beyond reasonable doubt then this means that it has all the requirements including evidence that a certain suspect is guilty then the case can proceed to the courts (Herring, 2004). This standard of proof is the one that is required in most cases because the evidence provided could be sufficient enough for the court to find the suspect guilty.
Clear and convincing evidence
This type of standard proof is usually used in the civil cases procedure but there are times when it is used in criminal cases. A case where this proof is very essential is the cases where a person wants to seek habeas corpus after being given capital punishment. In this case the person is supposed to produce sufficient evidence that will make them look innocent. In this standard of proof when a person is in trials they must produce enough evidence that has high chances of it being true (Cooper, 2003, p.3).
Balance of probabilities
This kind of standard proof is mainly used in the civil cases procedures. It is used in family courts and involves money with the issues of child support which lies under the child support standards act. This proof is usually used when there is high probability that the evidence provided is actually true. This kind of proof was also used in the juvenile courts. This proof is also used by employers of a company in order to not pay their former employees their benefits because of their misconduct while working (Cooper, 2003, p.3).
Difference between civil and criminal law
Civil law
The civil law deals with cases that are disputes between individuals or in the organization. It usually leads to compensations to the victims or otherwise. In the civil law cases the proof is supposed to be produced by the plaintiff in order to get a ruling. This requires them to produce evidence that will prove their innocence and their eligibility in a case involving children. Examples of standard proofs used in the civil law cases are balance of probability and the clear and convincing evidence. Good example is the case of Miller V. Minister of pension that occurred in 1970, that’s when the word balance of probability as proof was first mentioned (Herring, 2004). The other cases are the juvenile courts and also about child support between parents.
The criminal law
This is the body of the law that usually deals with crimes and how the criminals should be legally punished. In the criminal cases it is the prosecutor who is supposed to produce sufficient evidence that certain person or people have committed a crime. This brings about the phrase that a person is innocent until proven guilty. The assumption of innocence until proven guilty makes the individual not look for evidence but the authority has to find evidence that they are guilty or not. The jury in these cases are not supposed to be biased therefore; they need to not look at the background or ethnicity of the suspect (Herring, 2004). The persecutor has to use the standard of proofs in these cases such of murder or assault with a deadly weapon. Example of proofs that the persecutor uses is the proof beyond reasonable doubt. A good example of a case that used this is the case of Miles V. United States where the jury came out with the verdict of guilty without any reasonable doubt. The use of the phrase reasonable to believe is used in order for the investigative police to be able to get evidence from the car the suspect was using in order to acquire evidence in the cases such as that of Arizona V. Gant in 2009.
Conclusion
The concept of democracy seemed more reasonable for me because it provides for equality of all people in the state. This concept is the one that is beneficial for me and to all the people in the world. This is because the elections of the president or other representatives are conducted in a fair manner which will enable leaders to try and help the people in the community. This is what I strive for as a future leader in the criminal justice helping the people in the society the best way possible and also being held accountable whenever I have gone astray. In a democratic environment the rule of law would be followed thus the number of crimes in that country could reduce. In a democratic state the constitution is usually made and the people vote through the referendum therefore, the people will be able to have a say in the law making. In the constitution it will mostly emphasize on the protections of the rights of people and freedoms of people (Larry & Marc, 2006, p.168).
The constitution should have the fourth amendment this is because the properties of the people will be protected from seizure by the police officers or the government. When it comes to the process of the criminal law there should be the standards of proof that could make a person either guilty or innocent. To me the best standard of proof that should be used in the criminal law is the proof beyond reasonable doubt. This is because the investigator would have found all the evidence to a link a person to a particular crime and will have exhausted all possible investigation therefore, without reasonable doubt the investigators plus the prosecutor will present them to the court. In the civil law the best standard of proof that should be used is the balance of probability in which the defendant is the one to produce all evidence that has the probability of it being true (Cooper, 2003, p.3).
When the state is in this condition then as a criminal justice leader one will be able to ensure that the law is being followed by all individuals. The parliament system in a democratic state is usually made up of the representatives that are either elected by the people or the government appoints them. This is when the government jobs is done by the ministry under the close eye of the legislature and the people. In this way when the minister is not doing their job well then they are held accountable and the vote of no confidence is done. This will ensure that the governments business is being conducted in the right. As a leader of the criminal justice when situation arises when the minister has embezzled money from the government then it is your job to ensure that the process of conducting evidence is done in unbiased manner.
Reference
Becker et al (2002). Republicanism and Liberalism in America and the German States, 1750–1850. Cambridge University Press.
Calabresi, S. & Prakash, S. (1994). The message of the Tenth Amendment is that expressio unius est exclusio alterius applies to lists of governmental powers. Yale Law Journal.
Cooper, S. (2003). Human Rights and Legal Burdens of Proof. Journal of Current Legal Issues , 3.
Do Not Disturb: Fourth Amendment Expectations of Privacy in Hotel Rooms. (2010). Social Science Research Network .
Herring, J. (2004). Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kelemen, R. D. (2005). Built to Last? The durability of EU federalism. Princeton University press .
Larry J. D. & Marc. F. (2006). Electoral systems and democracy. Johns Hopkins University Press, 168.
Newman, E. (2010). Delegate proposes coal permit act » Local News » Cumberland Times-News. Times-news .
Reynolds, G. H. (2007). Is Dick Cheney Unconstitutional? Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy .
Schrems, J. J. (2007). Understanding Principles of Politics and the State. University Press of America , 206.
