1. Answer these questions based on the excerpt, In re Winship (1970)

1. What do we mean by the "presumption of innocence?" Aren't most people who

have been indicted and brought to trial probably guilty?

2. The Supreme Court holds that the standard of review applicable to finding guilt in

criminal cases, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt on every element of the

crime, to be of a "constitutional stature." What is the constitutional source?

3. Isn't requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt calculated to maximize error in that it requires a jury that believes the defendant to be probably guilty to return a verdict of not guilty?

2. WHY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT?

Walpin (2003) contends that whether in adversarial or inquisitorial systems of the American justice system, humans - the lawyer, the judge, or the juror - control the judgement in all cases presented in the court room. Yet, there are distinct differences between the adversarial and the inquisitorial systems. The inquisitorial system is where the magistrate or judge questions the witnesses or accused to determine the facts. The adversarial system allows the jury and prosecution to present the case before the juror and makes the final ruling (or even directs the jury to do so). On the one hand, in the inquisitorial system, the listener summarizes what the client says. On the other hand, the adversarial system knows what the client says.

The importance of the adversarial over the inquiestorial system is paramount to the justice for the client. In the adversarial system, the lawyer is both zealous and faithful for the advocacy of their client, meaning they have a fervent obligations to search favorable evidence and destroy unfavorable evidence. In contrast, this is not the obligation of an inquisitorial judge, because their zealousness and faithfulness is to society. On top of such constraints, the case overload and the limited budget that the state provides, the inquisitorial system does not spend adequate time on any specific case. The adversarial system is afforded the opportunity to spend more time on their client's case, "elects many investigatory paths," and has the upper hand on the facts of their client's case (Walpin, 2003, 179).

In conclusion, while the adversarial system is imperfect, it provides justice for the client through the jurors and the litigators.

3. WHY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT?

I think our criminal justice system should be a little more rehabilitative rather than punitive but to a certain extent. With strict punitive sentencing, the prisoners such as those locked up majority of the days spending most of their time in confinement, once released it's hard for them to adapt back to the world because it's as if they forgot how to engage and interact. Causing anxiety and little to no social skills. While it's few and far between now compared to over 10 years ago that supermax units are put to use, there is still one prision that enforces as such. In some cases the more they are locked up and punished, it can have a reverse effect and make them rebel and act out creating more and more punishment that will keep repeating itself. With rehabilitation it can allow the prisioners to maintain skills necessary and evolve for the better. However, still implementing punishment and high levels of supervision when allowed in a more rehabilitative state. I do think that it is possibe for the system to be both and I think they should be. With both it gives an equal share while not overpowering the other.