advantages of presidential systems

advantages of presidential systems One of the advantages of a presidential system is that the head of state is usually elected through a direct mandate. In terms of democracy, this makes the presidents authority more legitimate as he is elected directly by the people as oppose to being appointed indirectly. Another advantage of a presidential system is the stability it brings as presidents are usually elected to fixed terms while a prime ministers government can fall at anytime. An example of this is in Canada; where in a minority government the leader of the opposition, Michael Ignatieff, could bring down Stephen Harpers government and has threatened to do so several times. This is in contrast to President Obamas tenure which is secure till the elections of 2012. Additionally, presidential system allow for the separation of powers as the legislature is a completely different structure and institution. This allows a system of checks and balances to be created, allowing one to monitor the other. Speed and decisiveness can be seen as a positive characteristic of a presidential system, as presidents usually have stronger constitutional powers allowing them to spearhead reform and enact change swiftly. Conversely, one advantage of a parliamentary system is that its faster and easier to pass legislation. This is because the executive branch is part of the legislative branch and is dependent upon the direct or indirect support of it as it usually comprised of members of the legislature. This can be seen in the Canadian system of government where the prime minister and his cabinet is also Member of Parliament. This segues into the advantage that parliamentary systems usually have a higher propensity for having unified governments, as minority governments are the minority. This adds to the governments ability to pass legislation more quickly, as it is rare for a majority government to have their own legislation defeated, as parliamentary system usually have greater party discipline. Moreover, the lack of a head of states veto power also allows legislation to pass more swiftly. Another advantage of a parliamentary system is that power is more evenly diverged. Constitutionally, the prime minister rarely has such high importance of a president. An example of this is how parliamentary systems allow MPs to directly question the prime minister and his government. Also, lower individual importance on the prime minster position can be seen through elections tendencies as there is a higher focus on political party ideas than on the actual person. Lastly, the advantage of the government technically being able to dissolve at any time allows the government to be more accountable and viable. This allows parliament to replace a government or a prime minister if he or she has been lackluster or detrimental to the country. This allows for practicable governments to continue governing while ineffective ones can be disposed of. Disadvantages to a presidential system include tendencies towards authoritarianism. Because of the overarching power given to one person, presidential systems could quickly transform into authoritarian regimes if circumstances permit. Also the centralization of authority could lead to the president becoming a more influential figure in society and the media. This high priority on the president could lower and undermine civic participation as people might feel they cannot play an active role in lawmaking or place a lower significance on the legislative branches of government relative to the executive. Furthermore, separation of powers is also seen as a disadvantage of the presidential system as it might create gridlock and stalemates within the government. One example of this could be if the President continues to veto bills that the legislature ratifies, impeding government from passing laws. This can be seen in 1995 when Democrat Bill Clinton was president with a Republican controll ed Congress. The government could not get consensus on anything, not even on a budget. Lastly, impediments to leadership change can be seen as another disadvantage as it can be more difficult to remove an unsuitable president from office before her term is concluded, creating a potential situation where an idol or unhelpful president could not be removed and be replaced a better alternative. On the other hand, disadvantages to a parliamentary system include that the head of government is usually not directly elected. This is because the prime minister is typically elected by the legislature or the party in power, which normally means the party leadership. In addition, another disadvantage in the parliamentary system is that there is no independent body to oppose and veto legislation approved by parliament, and thus a lack of a cohesive checks and balance system. Also, because of the shortage in the separation of powers, parliamentary systems could instill too much power in the executive. This is because MPs usually have to adhere to parliamentary discipline, and cannot vote based on their own judgments or constituencies. Furthermore, as elections in parliamentary systems usually result in a majority government, this could lead to the tyranny of the majority resulting in the minority parties to be marginalized as they would have little to no input in government legislatio n. Moreover, parliamentary systems can be seen as inherently unstable, if minority governments are elected and coalition governments are formed as the government can be brought down at any time. Opponents of the parliamentary system point to Japans recent instabilities and constant replacing of prime ministers as well as Weimar Germany as examples where unstable coalitions, belligerent minority parties, and constant threats of the government being voted down by opposition parties. Lastly, the parliamentary system lack of a definite election calendar can be mistreated to allow parties to gain political advantages. The governing party can schedule elections with relative freedom, and avoid elections when it is unpopular. Indeed, in a Canadian context, Prime Minister Stephen Harper defeated his own government because polls showed that he had the ability to win a majority at the time. This gives an unfair advantage to ruling parties who can stave off defeat or increase their mandate at the expense of the opposition parties. The influence of a presidential system on politics can be seen through the stronger role of the president i as well as the gridlock that can be experienced when passing legislation. This is opposed to the parliamentary system and how a prime minister usually has a smaller role in politics while parliament is typically quick in passing legislation and avoiding gridlock. First, the president usually becomes a national figure, which represents the government regardless of the effectiveness of legislation. As policies are harder to pinpoint compared to parliamentary systems, a president usually receives all criticism and blame on legislation passed, regardless if the party passed it or not. However in parliamentary systems, the governing party usually receives praise and criticism for legislation passed with not everything being placed upon the prime minister. This segues into the president is the head of state, and performing ceremonial roles as well as being the commander in chief of t he armed forces. He also plays an active role in the government by setting out a governments agenda especially if her party is also in control of the legislature. This differs from parliamentary system as there is a more visible separation of head of state and head of government. An example of this is the Queen in the UK who almost exclusively performs ceremonial roles. The Queen by convention does not veto any legislation passed by the government, as she does not have that legitimacy given through the electorate. This differs from the prime minister who is directly involved in the lawmaking organs of parliament. The president in a presidential system is almost like the center part of a venn-diagram as she possesses the ceremonial part of the head of state while playing active role in the government process like a prime minister. Another influence that a president has on parliament is his role in the checks in balance system. The United States government is must more used to gridloc k and stalemates between the levels of government and even between to the two houses as that is how the system is set up to me. This is in contrast where legislation is Canada can be passed rather rapidly especially if the party has a majority government. This presidential system influences the way representatives behave as they

Criminal Defense Case

Criminal Defense Case Most people are aware of process to convict a criminal defendant. The prosecutor must prove â€Å"beyond a reasonable doubt† that the defendant is guilty of the crime in question, and that the accused is not required by law to present the court with any evidence, or prove he or she is innocent. Under the United States Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, a criminal defendant is not compelled to state under oath against himself. However, in some criminal trials, the defendant wants the opportunity to prove he or she is innocent by presenting the court with a defense. The following paper will discuss the various types of defenses criminal defendants can introduce to defend against criminal charges, and differentiate between the legal and medical perspective on mental illness and insanity (University of Phoenix Course Syllabus, 2009; Law Library, 2009). In most criminal defense cases, even though the defendant may have intentionally harmed another person or property, he or she may maintain that his or her case was an exception to the standards of criminal responsibility and that, as a result, he or she should not be found guilty and undergo any penalties. According to the Law Library (2009), â€Å"There are invariably unusual situations in which people intentionally cause harm, but the purpose of punishment would not be furthered in these cases† ( ¶4). In addition, due to psychological or intellectual challenges, some individuals are not held criminally responsible for their harmful conduct. Therefore, to accommodate these types of cases, defendants have the opportunity to avoid criminal responsibility by presenting defenses (Law Library, 2009). Two categories can identify criminal defenses: â€Å"I did not do it† (factual) and â€Å"I did it, but †¦Ã¢â‚¬  (legal). Defendants of the â€Å"I did not do it† category, try to avoid punishment by claiming that he or she did not commit the act in question. Defenses that fall into the â€Å"I did not do it† category are the Presumption of Innocent, Reasonable Doubt, and the Alibi Defense. Defendants of the â€Å"I did it, but †¦Ã¢â‚¬  category do not deny committing the act in question but instead, try to avoid punishment by claiming that the act was due to unusual circumstances. Defenses that fall into the â€Å"I did it, but †¦Ã¢â‚¬  category are Self-Defense, the Insanity Defense, Under the Influence, and Entrapment (Nolo, 2009; Schmalleger, 2010). The presumption of innocence means that every individual is presumed innocent until convicted, either as the result of pleading guilty or in a trial. This presumption means the defendant does not have to defend himself on his behalf, but instead, the prosecutor must convince the jury of the defendant’s guilt. A defendant may remain silent during the entire court process, not call upon any witnesses, and simply argue that the prosecutor failed to prove their case. The defendant goes free, if the prosecutor fails to convince the court that the defendant is guilty (Find Law, 2009). Defenses of reasonable doubt, the prosecutor must convince either the judge or jury assigned to the case that the defendant is guilty â€Å"beyond a reasonable doubt. † This could be a difficult standard to meet. Because the high burden of proof, means the evidence in favor of the defendant are to be resolved of all doubts by judges and jurors. With such a difficult task imposed on the prosecutor, a defendant may simply argue that there is indeed reasonable doubt (Nolo, 2009). The alibi defense is different from other major defenses; alibis are based on the claim of actual innocence. The defendant present evidence and or witness testimony proving that he or she was somewhere during the time the alleged crime was committed. For example, Jason Jones, 26, and his brother, Corey Jones, 29, were release from jail when federal prosecutors failed to counterattack the brother’s alibi. Frederick H. Cohn, a lawyer for Jason Jones, was able to prove that during the time of a federal witness killing in the Bronx, both brothers were approximately five miles from the scene of the crime according to Jason Jones MetroCard (The New York Times Company, 2009). Self-defense is commonly asserted by individuals charged with a crime of violence, like battery, assault with a deadly weapon, or murder. The defendant does not deny committing the crime, but instead, claims that his or her action was justifiable due to the other person’s threatening actions. The fundamental issues in most criminal trials are, who was the aggressor, was self-defense necessary, and was the reasonable amount of force used by the defendant. Although people are allowed to protect themselves from physical harm, it must be in the belief that a physical attack is about to occur. Further, an act of self-defense cannot exceed more force than is believe reasonable. A person who uses too much force may be guilty of crime. For example, the aggressor physically tries to attack the defender with his fist and the defender defends the aggressor back with a knife, stabbing the aggressor several times. The defender would be guilty of the crime since the force use was not reasonable (Nolo, 2009). The insanity defense is based on the standards that a person cannot be criminally responsible for the crime in question, if he is incapable of controlling his behavior and cannot understand the differences between right and wrong. Since some individuals’ do suffer from a mental disorder, the insanity defense prevents them from undergoing any criminal penalties. Here are some important points of interest. Not often, but when a defendant does enter a plea of â€Å"not guilty by reason of insanity,† judges and jurors almost never supports it. Maybe it has to do with the conflicting agreements between the legal and medical perspective. There are several definitions when it comes to insanity since both the legal system and medical experts cannot agree on one single meaning. McNaghten† defines insanity as â€Å"the inability to distinguish right from wrong. † â€Å"Irresistible impulse† defines insanity as â€Å"a person’s act may be wrong, but because of the mental illness his actions cannot be controlled. † Further, defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity is not released by confined to a mental institution for further evaluations, and in some cases, spends more time in the institute than they would if they were in prison. On behalf of the defense, a psychiatrist must testify after examining the case and defendant’s history (Find Law, 2009). Defendants that commit a crime while under the influence of alcohol or drugs sometimes argue that they cannot be held accountable for their actions since their mental functioning was impaired. However, intoxication, especially voluntary does not excuse criminal conduct. Most people are aware of the side effects of drugs and alcohol, thus holding them legally responsible for committing crimes as a result of their voluntary use. However, in some states, if the criminal crime requires â€Å"specific intent,† the defendant can argue that he was too intoxicated to have formed that intent. Although the defendant is still partially to blame for his actions, the punishment is less severe (Find Law, 2009). Entrapment takes places when a government official forces a person to commit a crime and then tries to punish them for it. In some cases, however, even if a government agent did suggest the crime and then help the defendant commit it, the defendant could still be guilty if the judge or jury believes the defendant would have committed the crime anyways. Entrapment defenses, thus, can be difficult for defendants with prior convictions of similar crimes (Find Law, 2009). In conclusion, a defendant is given the opportunity to present evidence on his or her behalf, even though he or she is not obligated to do so under law. Throughout this criminal defense case analysis, we were able to discuss the differences between criminal defenses of â€Å"I did not do it† (factual) and â€Å"I did it, but †¦ ,† (legal), as well as explain the various types of defenses under each category. Further, we are able to conclude that although there are a variety of criminal defenses that can be used to defend a person’s innocence, does not necessarily mean that the courts will agree with his or her actions or defense to actions. Reference Find Law. (2009). Criminal law: Common defenses: Defenses to criminal charges. Retrieved December 01, 2009, from http://criminal. findlaw. com/crimes/criminal-overview/common-defenses-to-criminal-charges. html Law Library. (2009). Criminal law principles: Defense principles. Retrieved November 30, 2009, from http://jrank. org/pages/18462/Criminal-Law-Principles-Defense-Principles. html Nolo. (2009). Defenses to criminal charges. Retrieved November 30, 2009, from http://www. nolo. om/legal-encyclopedia/article-30275. html Schmalleger, F. (2010). Criminal law today: An introduction with capstone cases. (4th ed. ) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. The New York Times Company. (2009). Murder case dropped after MetroCard verifies alibi. Retrieved December 01, 2009, from http://www. nytimes. com/2009/01/01/nyregion/01murder. html University of Phoenix Course Syllabus. (2009). CJA 343: Criminal Law. Retrieved November 30, 2009, from the University of Phoenix Student Web site.

Cosmology and Astrophysics

Analysis Of The Book Halfbreed By Maria Campbell

Summary Maria Campbell’s autobiography Halfbreed is a moving story about a young Native girl’s battle to survive, in coming to terms with the past and in discovering a way to build a brighter future in an atmosphere of social abuse and viciousness. Campbell is the oldest daughter of seven children, and was born in northern Saskatchewan. Within the book, she points out the differences between the Native people and the whites, as well as those of status Indians with non-status Native people. Both whites and full-blooded Native people rejected her due to her designation as a non-status Native, otherwise known as Metis. Filled with a strong feeling of resentment and anger, Campbell’s search for self-identity and her struggle to overcome the poverty, discrimination, and cruelty experienced by Metis individuals are described within the novel. When Campbell was twelve, her mother passed away. As a young girl, she was forced to give up school and take on the role of the mother t o her younger siblings. At fifteen years old, Campbell felt obligated to marry in order to prevent her younger brothers and sisters from being taken away from her and her father. Unfortunately, her diligent work and good intentions did not keep her family together. Her spouse, a white, abusive alcoholic, reported her to the welfare authorities, and her siblings were taken away and placed in foster homes. Her husband chose to take his family to Vancouver, where he abandoned her and their newly born child.Show MoreRelatedGender Roles : Half Breed And Anne Of Green Gables1832 Words   |  8 Pagesof us to grow into our personal identities. Maria and Anne accepted some gender roles and fought others but either way it was the journey that helped them to get to their personal identities. Half-Breed, the autobiography of Maria Campbell indicates throughout the book how gender roles affected her personal identity. This autobiography is written in the times when gender roles were the norm for males and females. The first incidence of this is when Maria Campbell’s Mother passes away and the family