Types of sources of law / courts and court systems

The federal, state, and local governments are the three levels of authority in the US. The independence and separation of responsibilities of such a government over a straightforward national government are its advantages. (Varone, 2012). Through the efficient distribution of authority, this prevents tyranny within a State. Additionally, it encourages pluralism by increasing the number of people who have access to leadership positions in their government and to chances. The disadvantage of three levels of government is the issue of lack of accountability by leaders as opposed to having a simple national government because power is shared and diffused to the three levels. It also results in a conflict of authority and power struggle amongst the levels of government thus causing divisions and regionalism within a State. Three levels of government create inequalities between the different states due to the disparities caused by the diffused leadership especially when some of the issues are categorized as state issues.

Disadvantage of adopting an NFPA standard into law

NFPA standards are usually unenforceable, however, they enjoy very unique reputation and have been adopted by the three levels of government in the US. Each standard usually goes through revision after every five years to ensure they are up to date with the emerging trends and technologies in the fire protection field. Compliance with the standards is usually voluntary, however when adopted into law, future changes in the standards require mandatory compliance and are usually legally enforceable and binding to a State. This is regardless of whether the State approves of the relevance or importance of the changes provided the standards development process has been followed.

Burdens for proof

A burden of proof is the duty or responsibility of a party in a suit to prove the truth of facts pleaded in case (Varone, 2012). The burden is usually placed upon the one bringing the action in court. There are three primary burdens of proof that differ depending on whether the suit is civil or criminal. The lowest standard of proof in civil cases is the fair preponderance of the evidence (Gaskins, 2008). It means that, on a balance of probabilities, facts are as claimed by one party to the suit. In such cases, the burden is usually placed upon the plaintiff to prove the facts asserted as well as the required legal elements. One side ought to be more convincing than the other to enable jurors reach an impartial and fair decision.

The burden of proof in civil cases differs from that of criminal cases. In such cases, the burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. This burden is usually placed upon the prosecution to convince the jurors that the defendant is guilty and the facts satisfy the elements of the particular criminal offense (Gaskins, 2008). This is due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the US constitution. This is due to the presumption of innocence of the defendant and the risk of denying one’s freedom. To satisfy this burden, the prosecution has the burden of production and persuasion.

The third burden is the clear and convincing burden that is rarely used in proceedings (Varone, 2012). It is derived from the fair preponderance of the evidence standard of proof. It is an evidentiary burden that requires that evidence alleged by a party should be highly probable. As such, it applies to both civil and criminal cases.

Works Cited

Gaskins, Richard H. Burdens of Proof in Modern Discourse. 3rd ed., Yale UP, 2008.

Understanding and Implementing Standards: Nfpa 1500, 1720, and 1851. The Assn., 2012.

Varone, J C. Legal Considerations: For Fire and Emergency Services. 2nd ed., Clifton Park, 2012.