US Supreme Court

There are a number of issues with regard to good governance and economic justice. For example one problem is preemptory challenge which seems to be a problem in good governance in US. People like Coburn R. B. state that peremptory challenge is not in it real shape as it was once defined by the US Supreme Court that it is a challenge “exercised without a reason stated, without inquiry and without being subject to the court's control” (questia. com).

He is one severe critic of this approach because to him “judges, scholars, and litigants often disagree over whether the peremptory challenge serves a worthwhile purpose in the American judicial system, all seem to admit that no constitutional basis exists for the peremptory challenge” (questia. com). However, he further informs us that in today’s Court the elimination of the peremptory challenge is more unlikely to happen as the Court holds that “that the peremptory occupies an important position in ... trial procedures” (questia. com).

Unless such issues are explored with their link with economic justice, there is no saying there will be any development. Participation in the court process is another issue (academic. udayton. edu). Moreover, an impartial jury adds just more to this background of our good governance in courtrooms and economic justice (Holland v. Illinois cited in law. cornell. edu). Preliminary Literature Review With regard to good governance in the courtrooms and economic justice, there a number of problems identified in the present day body of literature.

For example, According to Klein (1998) more and more citizens are becoming concerned with the increasing juvenile delinquencies which were previously considered as “inner-city” problem. However, the solution to lock more and more juveniles in court for as long time as possible has not been an effective strategy to cure the wound of society. According to the author, this type of policy (a quick-fix according to Klein) is a “two-edged” sword that is to hamper justice in two ways. One is that it distracts justices from punishing the real culprit.

Two, it brings a child to a forever doomed state which kills all the possibilities to treat the child into a sensible citizen. In the same way, policy-making for good governance in courtrooms and good economical underpinnings is central. What Mayers (qtd. in Jett A96) argues is that there must be rehabilitation programs and instruction-based orientations which can make a system of good governance possible. The reason for this, the author quotes, is that these types of facilities are generally needed for treating both the criminals and court governance bodies.

So the need is to enhance the functioning and quality of these programs and their executions among the targeted areas is very important which is directly linked to economic system. Another point to mention is that, Mayers (qtd. in Jett A96) directs toward the unity of our society with regard to the matter of better courtroom governance and giving dire attention to the issue of economic development and justice. Looking at the condition of international court with regard to good governance and economic system Jennings (p. 493, 1995) informs that the international court is still struggling in good governance and economic system justice.