Is the current U.S. Court System structured to determine the truth?
The question as to whether our courts are structured to assure that it offers justice for both the accused and victims has been the topic of debate across various settings. While it is true that our court system do what it takes to assure that it serves justice for all, it is essential to note that there exist certain errors that occur in the processes involved in the quest for justice. Based on a personal though, the court system in the United States is well suited to determine the truth pertaining criminal matters. Precisely, the court system in the United States comprises of two distinct structures; namely State and Federal court structures. The existence of these two structures serves the distinct purpose if ensuring that the truth is unraveled in cases brought to Courts within the United States. Precisely, the existence of federal courts provides a comprehensive platform that assures that truth is unraveled because these courts are structured to handle special cases (Cole et al., 2013), particularly those involving legal disputes.
Notably, federal courts can only hear cases that meet certain conditions. Above, cases to be heard by the federal courts should require in-depth interpretation of legal matters aligned with these cases. Certainly, this factor assures that the courts systems in the United States determine the truth pertaining criminal and civil cases put forward to them. On another note, the existence of state courts increases the chances that the United States court systems offer justice because these courts are streamlined to serve for the best interest of state’s citizens (Cole et al., 2013). The only way in which state courts can assure this is by assuring that court cases are handled in truthful manner that is satisfies everyone. This analysis justifies the notion that the court systems in the United States are well suited to determine the truth in legal matters.
Are there safeguards to enable the system to reach the truth?
As previously argued herein, the United States Court system is well suited to assure truth for victims and suspects of crimes. As such, there exist certain safeguards that serve to assure that this system establishes the truth. One of the major safeguards is the existence trial courts. It is at these courts that the quest to establish the truth is conceived. Precisely, trial courts seek to establish the truth pertaining factual dispute cases. Many at times, trial courts hear the opinion from two or more persons or parties mentioned in a case. Through such, hearing, the trial courts are able to formulate viable solutions to the emerging disputes by resolving the notable discrepancies in the disputes brought forward (Thomas, 2008). This analysis justifies the fact that the trials courts serve as a viable safeguard for the United States court system, which enables it, determine truth in various court cases.
Another notable safeguard within the United States court system is the existence of Appellate Courts. Often connoted as courts of appeal, this court structures offers an avenue whereby persons who disapprove judges arrived at in the trial court can appeal (Thomas, 2008). While the trial court as a safeguard to assure that truth is served for the accused, the Appellate Courts apply legal rules in interpreting facts found out by the trial courts. Certainly, this goes a long way in assuring that truth is arrived at in a justifiable manner. Overall, Appellate Courts merge facts and rule of law in interpreting disputes; hence, safeguarding truth as the core factor sought to be attained by our court systems.
References
Cole, G. F., Smith, C. E., & DeJong, C. (2013). The American system of criminal justice.
Thomas, G. C. (2008). The Supreme Court on trial: How the American justice system sacrifices innocent defendants. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
