While the jury remains a vital cog in the machine that is the English legal system, the debate over its validity has attracted many academic and legal opinions. The jury has been an integral part of criminal proceedings in Britain for over 800 years. Though the concept of the jury has remained a constant, the role of the juries in criminal proceedings has altered greatly. When juries were first introduced, they were used as witnesses as opposed to the modern role of returning a verdict. The concept of using a jury is to allow ‘ordinary citizens to participate in the administration of justice’ . This is designed to promote public confidence. The Criminal Justice Act of 2003 widened the criteria for those who were eligible to serve, particularly those who were involved in the administration of justice as a profession. This allows a …show more content…
A judge has no power to direct a verdict of guilty if there is sufficient evidence, but he can direct the jury as to what would amount to a crime. In the case of R v Ponting , the judge clearly stated that the defendant’s actions were enough to amount to an offence but the jury acquitted in spite of this. Perverse findings not only make the law inconsistent, it can lead to absurdities and unfair acquittals. The justice system in this country is designed to not only protect the public but to ensure a fair legal system for all, leading to another issue – eligibility. There are certain times when a person ordinarily fit for jury service finds themselves unable to perform their duty. This was exampled in the Vicky Pryce trial in 2013 when the jury failed to reach a verdict and the judge said there were ‘fundamental deficits in understanding’ . These people failed to understand the basic concept of jury service and were discharged. Perverse verdicts make the system become unstable and one which is not centred on
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
...8). However, if it was them who had been accused of a crime, surely they would be very happy to have a jury, instead of one person deciding their fate.
The jury system originated in England and has so far failed in cases (all too common) when defendants are wrongfully prosecuted or convicted of crimes which they did not commit. In societies without a jury system, panels of judges act as decision makers.
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.
It is considered to be inconsistent with the jury 's duty to return a verdict based solely on the law and the facts of the case. The jury does not have a right to nullification, and counsel is not permitted to present the concept of jury nullification to the jury. However, jury verdicts of acquittal are unassailable even where the verdict is inconsistent with the weight of the evidence and instruction of the law. Jury nullification takes place when jurors acquit a defendant who is factually guilty because they disagree with the law as written. Jury nullification also occurs when a jury convicts a defendant because it condemns the defendant or his actions, even though the evidence at trial showed that he technically didn’t break any law. For example, all-white juries in the post-civil war South routinely convicted black defendants accused of sex crimes against white women despite minimal evidence of guilt (Streicker, 2014). Jury nullification only affects a single case in which it is used in, not the actual law. A consistent pattern of acquittals for prosecutions of a certain offense can have the practical effect of invalidating a law, therefore leading the Supreme Court to alter a law or implement a new
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
...tood. This problem has persisted through many cases, clearly highlighting the lack of expertise of juries, and if they do not understand the process and basic rules, then they cannot be a reliable body in determining innocence. Jurors incapability of following evidence inevitably leads to guess work with jury’s finding defendants guilty because ‘he looked like he did it’ and ‘he looks like a nonce so he must of done it’. Moreover, cases have been reported of incredulous juries using absurd methods to ascertain a verdict, like in R v Young 1995, where a Ouija Board was used to determine if the defendant was guilty or not. It is clear that it would be better and far more effective to abolish the jury system, and leave the experts and qualified legal professionals to try defendants, as they understand the process and possess the expertise to make balanced decisions.
Within the Federal Government there are three main branches; “the Legislative, the Judicial, and Executive” (Phaedra Trethan, 2013). They have the same basic shape and the same basic roles were written in the Constitution in 1787.
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.
According to the Oxford Dictionary, the definition of a jury’s is “a body of people (typically twelve in number) sworn to give a verdict in a legal case on the basis of evidence submitted to them in court.” Whereas a juror is “a member of a jury.” There are three type of government in Australia, these include; the Federal Monarchy, the Constitutional Monarchy, and the Parliamentary System. The jury has come to be found as a very helpful system for our courts and judges as they make quite an impact on what decision will be made towards the end of the trial.
The County Court is the major trial Court in Victoria and its jurisdiction includes Civil jurisdiction, Criminal jurisdiction and Criminal Appeal. The main purpose for a Court is to maintain the justice in the society. Normally, jury is not necessary to be called except for some serious matters. It is summoned to act an important role as fact-finding in the judicial procedure. For example, the criminal matters prevalently call a panel of jury with 12 persons that is bigger than the one in the civil matters which is made up of 6 persons. All the decisions made by the jury are only based on the fact that provided by the prosecutor and the defendant. In addition, the judge provides some necessary suggestions about the law which related to the case to help the jury’s verdict more reliable in a proper moment. However, according to the observation in the two cases, it seems that there are some extra potential facts impacting the decision in a certain extent.
Schmalleger, F. (2009), Prentice Hall, Publication. Criminal Justice Today: An introductory Text for the 21st century
In England and Wales, there is no modern constitutional right to trial by jury, but it is the most supported in the public’s mind. Some trials are juryless and are run only by a judge, like in “Judge Judy”. Jury System The jury system is split into petit and grand juries. Petit juries are for trials in civic and criminal cases.
A jury makes the system more open, in that justice is seen to be done and that the process is public, making this a trial by peers and therefore satisfying the Right to Trial by Jury given by the Magna Carta. Jurors are ordinary members of the local community who are not legally trained, and as a Jury does not have to explain its decisions they are free to come to a verdict based on fairness alone. When deliberating a verdict they will sit alone and will be protected from outside influences. In Pontings’ Case (1984) a civil servant was charged under the Official Secrets Act 1889 after he leaked documents to an MP regarding the sinking of a ship – the General Belgrano. He pleaded not guilty because the documents showed that the Government of the day had lied and Ponting maintained that the leaking of
The jury system was introduced in Queensland in 1867 as part of the Queensland Constitution Act. Juries are used in indictable offences in criminal trials. They are mainly used in the District and Supreme Court if the accused pleads guilty. Juries are used to decide the guilt or innocence, of the accused person, based on the facts and evidence provided in court by the Prosecution and Defence Council.