Dual- Court System
The path for A case from State Trial Court level to U.S. Supreme Court
A case from a state trial case level goes through various processes before getting to the supreme court, which is the highest court. An example of breaking of common law in the state trial court is listened to and damage awarded depending on the evidence and facts provided. If one is not satisfied with the state trial court decision, they have a right to appeal to a higher court, which is the court of Appeal (McCloskey,2016). These courts do not listen to new evidence; instead, they review and decide whether the trial court applied the required laws correctly on a case. If a litigant also loses in the court of appeal, which is the highest state court, they have a right to file for ‘a writ of certiorari”.
Writ of Certiorari is a document that a litigant files asking the supreme court to review their case. It is not a guarantee that the supreme court will review a case. Therefore, the case must involve new and fundamental legal principles or when the two or more courts have interpreted a law differently (McCloskey,2016). At this court, the case is listened to, and both parties have an obligation of writing an oral brief. The supreme court reviews the case presented and renders a final judgment. Its judgment is final, and the litigant cannot appeal further than the supreme court.
Drug court
It is a specialized court charged with the responsibility of handling cases that entail substance abuse offenders. It does this through testing, offering treatment services as well as comprehensive supervision of the offender. Instead of the offenders charged for possession and use of drugs being taken to jail for correction, they are offered an opportunity to join a program for recovery from substance abuse. Having a drug court is a good idea because it gives an opportunity for people to recover. The court ensures that the offender does not get into more crimes, and they stop abusing various drugs. Most of the offenders recover from substance abuse, and crime rate reduces; drug court is a good idea.
The drug court has yielded a lot of success in the long run because most offenders become clean longer. The drug court keeps individuals in treatment for a longer time compared to other treatment programs; hence a positive outcome also reduces recidivism, making the drug court very effective. However, this specialized court is costly to manage (Bean,2017). It is expensive because of the many programs that are set to ensure the offenders recover from drug abuse. Programs such as education of the offenders, treatment, addressing various issues that cause them to abuse drugs, and providing them different skills to help them lead a drug and crime-free life is very costly. All these programs have to have professionals qualified to handle various areas, so it is very costly.
However, since the drug cost is effective, the cost is a significant concern. The drug court has led to the crime rate and the number of people abusing drugs to decreased. When a drug offender is taken to prison, they do not receive rehabilitation. Therefore, when they are released, they end up abusing drugs and committing more crimes. The drug court ensures this is avoided making it more effective though at a higher cost in the long run. However, the effectiveness of the program makes cost a second priority because it serves its intended purpose (Bean, 2017). To bring a balance between the cost and effectiveness and the cost of the drug court as the drug offender should be involved in income-generating programs as they learn new skills. Thus, as they learn skills that will help the lead a drug and crime-free life, they generate income. Therefore, the program will still be effective, and it will also be at a lower cost, bring a balance between cost and efficiency.
NN
References
McCloskey, R. G., & Levinson, S. (2016). The American supreme court. University of Chicago Press.
Bean, P. (2017). Drug courts, the judge, and the rehabilitative ideal. In Drug Courts (pp. 235-254). Routledge.