The right to a fair trial, is a person's fundamental right when being accused of a crime. It means that those accused can be certain that when in court, the process from separating the guilty from the innocent is fair and certain. Without this right, both the rule of law and the means of protecting society from injustice collapses. It has been seen that in the current age of social media, anything posted on Facebook or tweeted on Twitter can have an adverse effect on either people or situations. A recent article posted on May the 20th discussed whether jury trials in this age of social media can still be fair Within a court, jurors are supposed to consider the details and facts presented to them from both the prosecution and defendant, and …show more content…
This article questions as to whether jury trials still have the capacity to maintain that those being heard by jury can still have the right to a fair trial. In 2014, a Queensland murder trial was aborted after a juror had admitted to another juror, that they themselves researched the case on Facebook, this shows that jurors who do conduct their own research into cases that they are sitting on can have a detrimental impact on the case. Though jurors conducting their own research is not a modern occurrence, during a UK double-murder trial of 1994, jurors used a Ouija board to contact the victims’ spirits, who had then subsequently informed them that the accused murder was guilty. One of the main reasons as to why the aspects of the crime or the criminal history of the accused is kept hidden from the jury is to prevent the opinions of the jurors from becoming tarnished. Elizabeth Byrnes’ article, Mark Nolan, an associate Professor of Law at the Australian National University believes that there is a real risk of jurors including both inadmissible evidence and admissible evidence that is not known to either the prosecution or the defendant, this would then introduce “[...] inherent injustices and illegalities”. The would not allow for the prosecution or defence from preventing opinions and views of the jury to be based off of evidence that is …show more content…
For juries and jurors to be begin to conduct their own independent research during and perhaps before a trial is a serious detriment to both themselves and the trial itself. By using social media specifically, jurors have the ability to research anything and anyone, and even communicating with those involved with the trial. The latter is seen specifically during the case A-G v. Fraill, during a trial in Manchester, 2010, juror Joanne Fraill was found to have been directly communicating with the accused via Facebook. This had resulted in many consequences for both Fraill and the party that she had been communicating with. This demonstrated that with the interference of social media (on the jurors’ part), it produced an adverse effect on the defendant's right to a fair trial, and that even though at the time, the communication was to be in favour of the defendant, their right to a fair trial had been dismissed, as the trial had neither an impartial court/jury nor equality on the accused's part. By having the juror obtain a line of communication with the accused, the juror is no longer impartial and is then biased, whether they want to be or not. It is clear that social media does have an adverse effect on the person's right to fair trial, as it has created a serious issue that has led to aborted trials. In a report prepared for the Victorian Department
As one of the seven jury deliberations documented and recorded in the ABC News television series In the Jury Room the discussions of the jurors were able to be seen throughout the United States. A transcript was also created by ABC News for the public as well. The emotions and interactions of the jurors were now capable of being portrayed to anyone interested in the interworkings of jury deliberations. The first task,...
In America, every individual has the right to a fair trial, but how fair is the trial? When an individual is on trial, his or her life is on the line, which is decided by twelve strangers. However, who is to say that these individuals take their role seriously and are going to think critically about the case? Unfortunately, there is no way to monitor the true intentions of these individuals and what they feel or believe. In the movie, Twelve Angry Men, out of the twelve jurors’ only one was willing to make a stance against the others, even though the evidence seemed plausible against the defendant. Nevertheless, the justice system is crucial; however, it is needs be reformed.
At trial, your life is in the palms of strangers who decide your fate to walk free or be sentenced and charged with a crime. Juries and judges are the main components of trials and differ at both the state and federal level. A respectable citizen selected for jury duty can determine whether the evidence presented was doubtfully valid enough to convict someone without full knowledge of the criminal justice system or the elements of a trial. In this paper, juries and their powers will be analyzed, relevant cases pertaining to jury nullification will be expanded and evaluated, the media’s part on juries discretion, and finally the instructions judges give or may not include for juries in the court. Introduction Juries are a vital object to the legal system and are prioritized as the most democratic element in our society, aside from voting, in our society today.
In the United States, jury trials are an important part of our court system. We rely heavily on the jury to decide the fate of the accused. We don’t give a second thought to having a jury trial now, but they were not always the ‘norm’.
They are the impartial third-party whose responsibility is to deliver a verdict for the accused based on the evidence presented during trial. They balance the rights of society to a great extent as members of the community are involved. This links the legal system with the community and ensures that the system is operating fairly and reflecting the standards and values of society. A trial by jury also ensures the victim’s rights to a fair trial. However, they do not balance the rights of the offender as they can be biased or not under. In the News.com.au article ‘Judge or jury? Your life depends on this decision’ (14 November 2013), Ian Lloyd, QC, revealed that “juries are swayed by many different factors.” These factors include race, ethnicity, physical appearance and religious beliefs. A recent study also found that juries are influenced by where the accused sits in the courtroom. They found that a jury is most likely to give a “guilty” verdict if the accused sits behind a glass dock (ABC News, 5 November 2014). Juries also tend to be influenced by their emotions; hence preventing them from having an objective view. According to the Sydney Morning Herald article ‘Court verdicts: More found innocent if no jury involved’ (23 November 2013), 55.4 per cent of defendants in judge-alone trials were acquitted of all charges compared with 29 per cent in jury trials between 1993 and 2011. Professor Mark Findlay from the University of Sydney said that this is because “judges were less likely to be guided by their emotions.” Juries balance the rights of victims and society to a great extent. However, they are ineffective in balancing the rights of the offender as juries can be biased which violate the offender’s rights to have a fair
The jury system is essentially a descendant of Great Britain, the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians. Colonialism played a significant role in the development of the jury system globally. However, despite colonial influence, judicial systems across the world have taken their own way. As a result, the jury system has developed and changed to suit the needs and social conscience of different countries. Across the world, juries examine and decide the facts in a jury trial, the accuracy of the testimony, the guilt or innocence of criminal defendants, and liabilities in a civil litigation. Today, many countries such as Britain, United States, Brazil, Canada, Japan, Australia, France, German, India, and so on practice jury trials. These countries will be the issue of discussion in this paper.
Johnson, J., Keyzer, P., Holland, G., Pearson, M., Rodrick, S., & Wallace, A 2011, Juries and social media, Victorian Department of Justice, viewed 8 May 2014, < http://www.sclj.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/sclj/documents/pdf/juries%20and%20social%20media%20-%20final.pdf>.
Otto, A. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1994). The Biasing Impact Of Pretrial Publicity On Juror Judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 18(4), 453-469.
A jury is a panel of citizens, selected randomly from the electoral role, whose job it is to determine guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented. The Jury Act 1977 (NSW) stipulates the purpose of juries and some of the legal aspects, such as verdicts and the right of the defence and prosecution to challenge jurors. The jury system is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society as members of the community ultimately decide whether the person is guilty or innocent. The creation of the Jury Amendment Act 2006 (NSW) enabled the criminal trial process to better represent the standards of society as it allowed majority verdicts of 11-1 or 10-2, which also allowed the courts to be more resource efficient. Majority verdicts still ensure that a just outcome is reached as they are only used if there is a hung jury and there has been considerable deliberation. However, the role of the media is often criticized in relation to ensuring that the jurors remain unbiased as highlighted in the media article “Independent Juries” (SMH, 2001), and the wide reporting of R v Gittany 2013 supports the arguments raised in the media article. Hence, the jury system is moderately effective in reflecting the moral and ethical standards of society, as it resource efficient and achieves just outcomes, but the influence of the media reduces the effectiveness.
From conception in the Magna Carta 1215, juries have become a sacred constitutional right in the UK’s justice system, with the independence of the jury from the judge established in the R v. Bushel’s case 1670. Although viewed by some as a bothersome and an unwelcomed duty, by others it is perceived to be a prized and inalienable right, and as Lord Devlin comments ‘ trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution : it is the lamp that shows freedom lives.’ It is arguable that juries bring a ‘unique legitimacy’ to the judicial process, but recently it seems that their abolition may be the next step forward for the UK in modernising and making the judicial system more effective. Many argue that jurors lack the expertise and knowledge to make informed verdicts, along with views that external forces are now influencing juries more heavily, especially after the emergence of the internet and the heavy presence it now has on our lives. Yet, corruption within the jury system is also internal, in that professionals and academics may ‘steamroll’ others during deliberations about the case. These factors, coupled with the exorbitant costs that come along with jury trials creates a solid case for the abolition of juries. On the other hand though, the jury system carries many loyal supporters who fear its abolition may be detrimental to society. Academics and professionals such as John Morris QC state that; 'it may well not be the perfect machine, but it is a system that has stood the test of time.’ Juries ensure fair-practice within the courtroom, and although controversial, they have the power to rule on moral and social grounds, rather than just legal pre...
... In a speech to the House of Lords in 1844 Lord Denman remarked: 'Trial by jury itself, instead of being a security to persons who are accused, will. be a delusion, a mockery and a snare. The question of juror competence remains a recurrent feature in both the research and policy. literature (Horowitz et al., 1996; Penrod & Heuer, 1997). Indeed, in the. 1998 the Home Office invited commentary on whether an alternative to the traditional jury system was appropriate for cases of serious fraud.
The book Acquittal by Richard Gabriel states, “juries are the best judges in the system. They are not elected, they don't have the high-powered microscope of appellate review or the stern, disapproving-schoolmarm precedent looking over their shoulder, and they have no interest in the outcome of the case.” For this reason, we can come to the conclusion that the use of juries in a trial is the best for all involved in the legal system. While juries, “are the best judges in the system”, lawyers, jury consultants, and jury scientists are the reasons they are viewed this way. It is their job to make sure that not only their client, but everyone has a fair and unbiased trial.Making sure that “the best judges in the system” are fair and unbiased takes a lot of planning, research, and effort. You must research the jurors, understand how they think, what their morals are, and how they would view this case. “It is a constructed reality, cobbled together by shifting memories of witnesses, attorney arguments, legal instructions, personal experiences, and beliefs of jurors.”(Gabriel
The book “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is a book about twelve jurors who are trying to come to a unanimous decision about their case. One man stands alone while the others vote guilty without giving it a second thought. Throughout the book this man, the eighth juror, tries to provide a fair trial to the defendant by reviewing all the evidence. After reassessing all the evidence presented, it becomes clear that most of the men were swayed by each of their own personal experiences and prejudices. Not only was it a factor in their final decisions but it was the most influential variable when the arbitration for the defendant was finally decided.
Jurors play one of the most important roles in the courtroom, which is deciding on a verdict of guilty or innocent. The fate of an offender lays in the palms their hands, and as a result there is a lot of pressure. There are always going to be individuals who disagree with the verdict in various cases, and people can become outraged and even turn to violence. Jurors can be in danger once their names are made public information because individuals who disagree with a verdict can take his or her anger out on jurors by obtaining their addresses and phone numbers. I believe the criminal trials that receive massive amounts of media attention put jurors at a greater risk of danger.
“South Africa ditched juries amid fears of racial prejudice among jurors and a reluctance on the part of many people to serve” (Fuchs), which most likely brings up the problem we have here in the U.S. Law professor Peter Van Koppen provides a perfect example of a common situation and compares it to our criminal justice system which sums up my stance on the ruling out of jury trials in the U.S., “Van Koppen pointed out that you wouldn 't want a panel of lay people acting as doctors. So, why would you want regular people deciding the fate of defendants? The work done by a jury isn’t that different from the work of a scientist like a doctor, he wrote. ““A scientist must make inferences about states of affairs that cannot be observed directly, inferring from the evidence that can be observed. And that is precisely what a jury must do: make a decision about the guilt of the defendant based on the evidence presented at trial. That is a scientific enterprise that surpasses the intellectual aptitude of most laypersons who are called to jury duty””