1- Analyze a court system of a model nation. Briefly outline (approximately two pages - do not exceed 1,000 words) the function and organization of this court system. The actors, levels of courts and appeals process should be included.

2- After reviewing the training of judges and the judiciary in our six model nations, what do you think the essential qualities of a judge are in administering justice? Which of the model countries and systems are most conducive to advancing judges that have these qualities? How are judicial independence and impartiality related to judges being able to administer justice appropriately?

Write a comment for these responses like do you agree or disagree with the responses

Response 1: Kimberley smiley

“Many countries rely on professional judges who are trained and paid to be adjudicators of legal matters” Germany, France, Japan, and Saudi Arabia have a self-selecting process for the selection of judges. After this self-selection happens the candidates do have to go through apprenticeships before actually deciding court cases. The model nations I believe that have the best qualities because of their training and educational requirements are France, Germany, and China.

“Judicial independence is a principle that holds that courts and judges are bound to the law and should make decisions without being under the influence, direct or indirect, of other governmental or political agents” (Dammer. 2014. Pg. 159). Judges should base their decisions on what they know to be fair and by relying on the training they have received. Judicial impartiality is also a basic characteristic in the functionality of court operations and it states that judges have to treat everyone equally in the court. Neither judicial independence nor judicial impartiality procedures are always present in courts because the model nations are known for depriving individuals of their rights.

Response 2: Joseph Rubino

In this subject about the judge, however, remains above the fray, providing an independent and impartial assessment of the facts and how the law applies to those facts. In the law to these facts to determine whether a civil claim has been established on a balance of probabilities or whether there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, in criminal cases, that the suspect is guilty. Anyone who faces five years or more in prison if convicted of a crime has the right, under the Charter, to request a jury trial, and many defendants facing serious offenses such as murder opt to have a jury hear their case. The jurors become the triers of fact and assess the evidence while the judge takes on the role of legal ad visor, explaining the law to the jurors. The jurors then retire to deliberate on a verdict. In criminal cases the jury's verdict, either "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" must be unanimous. It depends on each cases of their over load in general.