Recently there have been critical calls to fix Queensland’s jury system. The current jury system is said to be outdated and as Ian Turnball (2001) states “Our jury system is a legacy of England's distant past.” However for a change to occur, an investigation of the history, strengths and weaknesses of the jury system must be made. To then allow a discussion of the alternative strategies or recommendations to improve the effectiveness system. The right to trial by jury was enabled when the constitution of Queensland was passed in 1867. A jury is a group of 12 citizens chosen to represent the society and listen to the trial of an indictable offence. They are required to decide, based on the evidence and facts presented at trial, the guilt or innocence of an accused whilst ensuring justice. The relevant legislation that governs the jury system in Queensland is the Jury Act 1995 (QLD).The purpose of this legislation is to provide information on who is suitable to become a juror, who can excused from their jury duties and to help prepare a prospective juror. The stakeholders in the current jury system include: The accused, which rely upon the jury to ensure their justice; the victim of a crime, of who depend on the system to make certain the accused is punished for the harm they may have caused them; The law makers of the state, the government, due to their involvement in the system; as well as the court, that use this system to serve justice and to determine the innocence or guilt of an accused. There is no doubt that the current jury system has several strengths. In the current jury procedures, all twelve jurors must agree upon the verdict of a case. As a result, the unanimous outcome is more likely to be accepted by soci... ... middle of paper ... ...ve societies involvement and it would be too much pressure on one person to lay the burden of the verdict. Therefore removing the unanimous verdict would be a more appropriate change. This way, Queensland’s system is consistent with most other states. Not only is this method quicker and cheaper it also places less pressure on jurors to achieve unanimity. Evidently, Queensland’s jury system is not up to standard. This is apparent when the history, strengths and weaknesses are explored and when it is compared to alternative systems such as the ones used in other Australian states. Works Cited Turnbull, I. 2001. A suggested alternative to Australia's jury system. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1273 (accessed June 4, 2011) Constitution Act 1867. 2002. http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/C/ConstA1867.pdf (accessed May 28, 2011)
While having a judge may seem like it is more effective, while calculating time spent on the case, money used, and the education in the field of justice that a judge has, using a trial by jury is the best way to preserve the American ideal of democracy. In the Jury system mini Q document F, Mark twin mentions that the jury system doesn’t want educated people because they would make the trial too easy for one side. Rather than insulting the jury system it seems like this is more of a good thing because it shows that the jury system doesn’t want people who know too much about the subject already and could sway the decision based solely on their bias. Another way that the system is fair is the fact that rather than having one judge decide the fate of a person, rather it is 12 other citizens that have no ties to the person. In the Jury system mini Q document B The letter states “a reasoned and professional judgment should be replaced by blanket verdicts or pretty well any twelve men and women … I had taken my leave of sense.” While this man is insulting the jury system what he says should still be looked at. The people that come together for a jury will have much less bias towards the accused person that a judge who has either seen the person before, or could just not be looking at it with multiple points of
Just and equitable legal outcomes to evaluate the case include of many expectations that may be met, the outcome of the case was discovered by fair trial which includes correct punishment theories and procedures, Justice Roslyn Atkinson met these through the trial also making it equitable because the punishment theories were applied to the offender Brett Peter Cowan. Punishment options and procedures in Queensland met the current needs of the society throughout this
Jury nullification is the process by which the panel of juries acquit the defendant regardless of evidence provided. Jury are also able to nullify the law if it is applied unjustly, again, regardless of supporting evidence or instructions from the judge. It is clear that there are both, strengths, and weaknesses of this process, which will be discussed in this paper. This paper will champion jury nullification within the Canadian justice system, discuss its pros and cons, as well as propose changes to the process. Ideas of morality, fallibilities of rule of law, and social change will be explored in relation to jury nullification and its effects on the legal system within Canadian
This chapter is mainly devoted to the jury selection process and how it is taken care
They weigh the evidence and apply the law. In the court system, criminal law is interpreted by a jury who are seen as expressing the sense of justice of ordinary men and women. Juries date back to the Middle Ages in England, and while membership, role, and importance have changed throughout the ages, they were part of the system of England’s Common Law. The purpose of the jury system was to ensure the civil rights of the ordinary citizen. It is important to remember that at the time, ordinary people had few rights.
Smith, William (1997) “Useful or Just Plain Unfair? The Debate Over Peremptories; Lawyers, Judges Spllit Over the Value of Jury Selection Method” The Legal Intelligencer, April 23: pg 1.
... of the juror’s and their sentencing or decision making in our study but further research could be carried out solely into how political attitude could also influence the jury-decision making.
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>.
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.
Mention the pros and cons of our jury system and possible alternatives of it. Also, identify the group dynamics of the jury members