The judicial system has encountered a lot of challenges in an attempt to provide efficient and fair services for all its clients. All parties involved in the legal system crave for optimal justice that in most cases may not be granted. The division of the society into the “Haves” and the “Have not” is the major reason as to why most of the seekers of justice do not pursue it. The two groups of people in the society have profound effects on the administration of justice and the development of an efficient legal system in the USA. The greatest beneficiaries of such a legal system are the ‘haves’ since their social, economic and political status helps them to manoeuvre through the justice administration process. The legal officials tend to favour the ‘haves’ because of their social status. Through the analysis of the roles of the two groups in the society, the various aspects of sociology role are explored. The evaluation of the ‘haves’is centre-staged on On-Shotters (OSs) and Repeat Players (RPs). The ability of the ‘haves’ to manoeuvre through the legal system is attributed to the availability of lawyers, institutional facilities and rules among others.

The paper will explore the reasons as to why the ‘haves’ come ahead in the legal system in the USA. The explanation of these reasons will be based on the availability of lawyers, rules, institutional facilities and the typology of the involved parties. Various mechanisms and examples that bring about this aspect will be explored too. Additionally, the implications of this kind of legal system in the contemporary society will be explored at length. The aspect of implications will be centre-staged in the presence of higher levels of wealth inequalities in the USA.Despite the various efforts and attempts to avert this trend, the ‘haves’ still come out in the legal system in the USA.

Why ‘Haves’Come out Ahead and related Mechanisms                                            

The presence of some distinctive elements makes the ‘haves’ in the society to come out in the legal system. These elements create a platform in which the ‘haves’ of the society acquire more advantages than the ‘have-nots’ hence the ability of the former to acquire the best out of the existing legal system. Notable elements that distinguish the process of acquiring the perceived justice by either of the two groups are the typology of the parties, lawyers, institutional facilities and the existence of rules. Each of these elements has profound effects and influences on the various decisions that are in the court of law. Most of the American courts recognise corporates as individuals who have their rights and not just as mere instruments. (overviewpdf p. 9)

The typology of the involved parties is one of the distinctive elements that affect the acquisition of justice by the members of the society. In this element, the repeat players stand to benefit more than the on-shotters.The existence of these parties makes the ‘haves’ to benefit more than the ‘have-not’The differences that exist in state laws, resources andthe abilities of different people in the societyhassignificant impacts on the administration of justice.For instance, the ability of the repeat groups to handle the litigation issue in a better manner than the OCs makes the ‘haves’ to get more advantages. Repeat groups caexpertise and experience the victory of the ‘haves’is guaranteed and subsequently the ability to stand out. The ‘haves’ thereby incur lower costs for their cases thereby maintaining an edge with their societal counterparts (Those who do not ‘have’). The ability of the RPs to develop some facilitative relationships with some judicial incumbents ensures that they enjoy some favours at the expense of others. With such favours in place, the ‘haves” stand to benefit more. Additionally, the RPs havehigher credibility as the combatant. This puts them in a higher position of winning the case for their clients (the ‘haves’).The abilityof the repeat groups to invest in penetration has enabled the ‘haves’ to come out ahead in the judicial system.

The ability of the ‘haves’ to access higher level judicial services enable them to stand out as far as the administration of justice is concerned. For instance, their ability to hire qualified and experienced lawyers make the ‘haves’ to come ahead in the legal system. The experience of these lawyers serves as important tool for convincing the judges in the case to rule in favour of their client. Additionally, the existence of other legal specialists for each of the parties has profound advantages to the ‘haves’ at the expense of the ‘have-nots’. For instance, the availability of a General Counsel for banks and insurance companies in the case of repeat parties ensures that the ‘haves’ get the due judgement for their cases without discrimination. The inclusion of such specialised and experienced personnel in the legal system ensures that the rt of law.These lawyers and specialists have more specialised skills in the legal systems hence their ability tomanoeuvre through the legal systems with some ease. The long and sufficient experience that they possess in the legal systems makes them be able to control the counsel thereby inducing some judgements that are inclined and in favour of the ‘haves’. Additionally, the ability of these lawyers to have better and resourceful information on the existing legal system and its various features ensure that proper justice is awarded to their clients. This is contrary to the ‘have-not’ who areunable to acquire such legal services due to financial constraints.

The existence of institutional facilities ensures that the ‘haves’ always come out ahead in the legal system. This feature is advantageous to the repeat groups due to the distributive features of the legal services in the USA. The basic features of these institutional facilities are passivity and overload. Passivity is the situation whereby the institutions are passive. Passivity refers to the skill that helps one to navigate procedural requirements in the legal system. On the contrary, overload creates pressures on the claimants to settle rather than to adjudicate. The ability of the ‘haves’ to enjoy passivity in their cases through the various institutional facilities ensures that they overcome the delay and increased costs that may arise. With such inclusions in place, ‘haves’ will come out ahead in any legal system.

The use of the various mechanisms has been instrumental in the evaluation of the relationships

Implications to the Contemporary Society

The fact that the ‘haves’ come out ahead in the legal systems has profound effects on the contemporary society. These implications are vital attributes of the sociology law. Notable implications of this aspect are the increased levels of wealth inequalityand the increased spending in judicial elections in the USA. The two aspects have had significant effects on the contemporary society. The ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ are significantly affected by these aspects. Increased spendingin the judicial elections in US is a clear indication of how the ‘haves’ have come out ahead in the legal system. This aspect is depicted by the fact that about 90% of the state appellate judges have to be re-elected by the voters in the USA. The four systems of partisan elections, nonpartisan elections, gubernatorial appointments and merit selection plans. In all these cases, a contentious law or legal provision sets the centre –stage for massive campaigns and various engagements to woo the voters. For instance, in the 1980s, the death penalty was used by prospective judges as benchmark for their re-election campaigns.In the 1990s, most of the recumbent judges retained their seats after re-elections though the trend has changed drastically in the recent past. With such unpredictable election results, higher spending in such elections has been realised. The failure of voters to re-elect the incumbents of the legislative and congressional levels in 2000 led to increased cost of the campaigns by the prospective candidates. The increased cost of campaigns was associated with the adjacent increase in the television advertisements that were financed by the aspirants.The spending in these campaigns was significant also to the non-candidatures. For instance, in 2001, the non-candidate spending was more than 42%. The trends for the TV ads for the group, party and candidates were very significant. For instance, the TV ads for the candidate had 31122 total spots, the group had 16326 spots, and the party had 14762 spots in 2012. The increased spending in these judicial campaigns in 2012 is depicted by the total spending breakdown whereby the candidates used 57.3%, political parties used 15.3% and 27.4% of the total spending was contributed by special interest groups.

Conclusion

The gap between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ has led to profound effects on the administration of justice in the legal systems. The fact that the ‘haves’ come out ahead in the legal system has had various implications on the contemporary society in the USA. The mechanisms that depicts the relationship between the judicial system and the provision of justice to the ‘haves’ include the availability of lawyers, institutional facilities, rules and the typology of the parties. The ability of the ‘haves’ to contract high profile and experienced lawyers facilitates the administration of justice. These aspects have profound implications on the contemporary society. Notable implications are the increased spending in the judicial campaigns and the increased levels of wealth inequality in the USA.

Need assistance with this?

CLICK BUTTON TO ORDER NOW