FREE ESSAY ON THE COURT SYSTEM

THE COURT SYSTEM

Our court systems have, in recent years, been said to be inefficient, sometimes
ineffective, and even
backlogged 
to the point where cases have to be dismissed because of how long it takes for them to
get to court.
After my 
trip to court, these are my opinions and observations on the Efficiency and Effectiveness
of our
Criminal Court 
System. The court procedures of provincial court are very systematic and are carried out
very
swiftly. It is 
much like a tennis match, the ball, or control in the court, is volleyed back and forth
between the
judge (and 
court clerk) and the lawyers. The court clerk arraigns the accused, the defence lawyer
responses
with how the 
accused pleas, if it is not guilty, the court clerk asks how the Crown lawyer wishes to
proceed and
so forth. 
However, this is not so in the Ontario Supreme Court (Trial Division), though similar in
methodical
procedures, 
the court cases are longer and much more time is spent on each individual part of the
case, from
presenting the 
evidence to cross- examination of the witness, this is because of the amount of
information involved.
The general 
atmosphere and behaviour in the Provincial Courtrooms were general loose and calm. The
people,
lawyers, 
judge, clerk and recorder seem to know each other very well. They joked openly, even
while the
court was in 
session, the defence lawyer asked if he could persuade the judge into a lighter sentence
after the
judge had 
already made a decision in a very easy and friendly tone of voice, something seemly
unprofessional
that caused 
chuckles throughout the courtroom. Where in the Ontario Supreme Court the atmosphere was
much
more 
serious, professional, strict and at times high in tension. Our current bail system, in
either monetary
terms or 
personal recognizance, seemed pretty successful in Provincial Court, though not observed
in the
Ontario 
Supreme Court, all the people did show up for their trial, which included two people on
bail for
possession of 
marijuana cigarettes. As a final note, no bench warrant was every called for by the judge
for people
whom failed 
to attend their trial. The necessity of the duty council is for those who don't have a
lawyer and is for
their benefit 
that they discuss legal options that the accused might have before proceeding, however
this part of
the system is 
not very efficient as the court must adjourn for this and thus waste valuable time that
could be
otherwise used for 
processing other court cases. The Crown Attorney in provincial court was, on the whole,
fairly well
prepared, 
efficiently bring relevant facts to attention, friendly and well acquainted to the
defence lawyers as well
as the 
judge, and quick to get to the point that he was trying to prove. There was little time
wasted,
between the 
arraignment and the sentencing, on the part of the Crown Attorney. In Ontario Supreme
Court, the
Crown 
Attorney there seemed well prepared, efficient, and quick, however there seemed to be a
lack of
personal 
evolvement in the case, rather he seemed emotionless, just doing his job, not being
familiar with the
judge or 
other people in the court room. By the way he presented and dressed, he appeared far more
strict
and serious in 
conduct and appearance than his Provincial Court counterpart. Calling a remand can be
helpful in
that it allows 
witnesses, especially key witnesses, to be present at a later date when it is possible
for them to
attend the trial, 
as duty may call them to do otherwise. The disadvantages, however, are mostly on the
accused's
part, as s/he 
must remain in custody longer in order to be brought back to trial. The necessity for a
lawyer for
minor offences 
can sometimes outweigh the cost the accused must pay for them because the lawyer
understands the
law and 
how the system works, he might be able to point out some small discrepancies or may
suggest what
type and 
how much punishment is suitable for the accused's crime. The lawyer may also point out
that if the
person has a 
record, how old it really is, as records older than 5 years old that are not cleared are
disregarded by
the judge. 
They also help the cases progress faster as an accused legal options will be already made
clear to
him by his/her 
lawyer. Lawyers are absolutely necessary for major cases, as the accused may not
understand his
legal rights 
clearly or may not know how to defend himself correctly in the correct the manner during
trial in
court. Court 
judges in Provincial Court were generally looser than those in Ontario Supreme Court as
that the one
we saw in 
Supreme Court seemed more serious, lacked in emotional expressions, but also easily
bored.
However in 
Provincial Court, they were serious but there was room for humour and understanding of
the
accused's situation. 
Over all they looked like they enjoyed their jobs. All in all, the system we currently
have cannot be
any better as 
it is efficient as humanly possible without violating 
"