1. Identify and discuss those remedies
After Judge Royce of the US District Court found that the government violated its trust responsibility, he ordered the government to be providing regular reports in ensuring that corrective procedures were implemented. Further more, the court-retained jurisdiction in oversight provision. This level of oversight might look to be more severe than that effects tolerated due to the distinctive holdup case, but might be equal to the magnitude level of government malfeasance and the possible plaintiff’s prejudice case. Provided with the history of document destruction, and loss of information important in conducting historical accounting beyond the reach of plaintiff, combined with inability of government officers to discharge their fiducially obligation; such a remedy is appropriate to the nature of government breach.
Another remedy is jail and imprisonment. This remedy is not the best as it rises the number of individuals going to jail and prison for longer periods and rising fiscal stresses on correctional institutions in many states. Such like condition is dangerous and constitutionally unacceptable. This is what has occurred in many jurisdictions, not enduring the ruling of Supreme Court. This has hardened the process of inmates to demonstrate violation of their rights and how they are interpreted. The intention of the federal government in this remedy was to dramatic conditions under which inmates can sue and place constrains on courts that hear such cases.
A personal fine is another remedy. This remedy combined with city fines creates no new tenets of law. It does not invoke any new tenet of any kind. However, it sends a message to district judges that, they are subject to being second-guessed to this court. This message however will affect unintentionally emboldening recalcitrant officials, by testing the ultimate reach of authority of remedy.
2. What are the purposes and functions of judicial review?
Judicial review is term that refers to the court’s review of lower court decisions to examine if an error if there was a mistake. It also refers to the power of the court to ensure judgments are passed on the actions’ constitutionality of states, federal legislatures and the courts.
There are three functions of judicial review. First of all, it provide space for serving justice by looking into mistakes that happened when decisions were made in lower courts. Secondly, appellate courts monitoring lower court’s performances. this implies that there is an incentive for lower courts to apply the law in a correct manner, and if any chances exist that a mistake happened, there is a room to over turn their decision. Finally yet importantly, judicial review also used when examining important controversies that concerns that law, as it provides room for resolving such controversies, which can be used as guidelines in courts and by individuals in future. This function is the main concern of courts at highest level, which in many instances accept to hear appeals at their discretion only.
After the first appeal, typically the second appeal is only allowed at the higher court’s discretion. On the other hand, in some types of cases, defendants have the automatic right to appeal to the state supreme court. Appeal does not mean new trials, as there is no assembling of juries, only a panel consisting of many judges review the case to examine if there was any error in the first decision. Appellate courts examine the application of law and procedure rules, in determining their validity, depending on the appeal’s contentions. They determine if all the parties involved properly applied rules of evidence to the evidence admission. If in any case errors are found, then it must be substantial enough to affect the results of the trial significantly.
3. What is information paradox and what are its implications of information paradox on information policy.
Information paradox is apparent contradiction that expresses truth that is non-dual about information. Such like paradox are: first is, Arrows Information paradox; which is the difficulty of information being sold, when the nature of that information is described to the one who wants to buy it, in it self, would communicate very important information. The second paradox is, black hole information paradox; explains that information might be lost when a black hole evaporates, though this violates the principles of quantum mechanics.
The prospect of getting information can make many individuals suffer, even in circumstances that information is available only when the majority supports it. Nevertheless, in acquiring information there exist two incentives. The first incentive explains that, policies that ted to have distributional uncertainties will have less information that will be acquired collectively in a committee than other policies. Secondly, policies that tend to have only small uncertainties; there will be intense efforts in acquiring information collectively as a committee. (Hans, 1997).
Committee members have different expectations. The reason for different expectations is that facts that personal objectives about the pay-offs of deeds that tend to be far in the future only coincide when a lot of information is shared by committee members. Inefficiently, a lot of information only serves to justify a decision that is otherwise unavoidable to all. If there are different expectations, it is necessary for policy makers to collect more data to keep all the alternative open. In all the cases, a lot of information might have side effects to the policy.
With too much information at hand, people will be better of as they will be able to examine the consequences of their policy choice. However, this argument is based on the fact that, there is no option for a choice to disappear in the presence of more information. Contrary to this, some markets exist due to the grace that available information is incomplete. On the other hand, since policy makers is just a group of individuals with conflicting expectations, they might end up collecting little information and even don’t take into consideration information that is free, with the aim of avoiding real conflicts.
4. What is “Judicial Gate keeping” and why does it matter?
This is just a means of maintaining legitimacy in the judiciary. It administers professional certification for the purpose of protecting clients from fraud and advice that is unqualified. It involves the use of experts in courts. The expertise range covers the human knowledge span
It maters in manner that scientific knowledge will be used in understanding evidence, this will enable them to offer conclusions that are based on practices and knowledge that is above the juror. As an effect, expert witness that has not yet become policies will have a potentially prejudicial influence on jurors, who might apt to belief the expert basing mainly on what status they hold. In the prevention of lay witnesses from speculating, judges are supposed to “exclude a witness offering wholly speculative testimony”, (Daley & Thomas, 2010).
Gate keeping practices have excluded evidences that do not provide room for the jury to make inferences that are not reasonable enough. Evidences like hearsays is not able to sustain a conclusion that is acceptable, as an effect, judicial gate keeping has kept such like evidences away from being considered by the jury. Some evidences have also been kept from juries, basing on the fact they are deemed too complex for them to make any inference that is needed. This has been reflected in the codification of some determinations, which as a matter of fact need to be decided upon by the judge other than the jury.