The use of evidence and witnesses is a mechanism in which the law attempts to balance the rights of victims and offenders in the criminal trial process. Evidence used in court are bound by the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and have to be lawfully obtained by the police. The use of evidence and witnesses balance the victims’ rights to a great extent. However, it is ineffective in balancing the rights of offenders. The law has been progressive in protecting the rights of victims in the use and collection of evidence and witness statements. The Criminal Procedure Amendment (Domestic Violence Complainants) Bill 2014, which amends the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, passed the NSW Legislative Council on 18 November 2014. The amendment enables victims of …show more content…
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
As members of society we are told that the law is a predictable and reliable entity which is applicable to all individuals, despite the differences. This statement encourages us to abide by the law, and entrust it to make decisions that are best for us as individuals and as a community. Due to the formalism of law, it must be emphasized that there is a need for a compassionate component, to even the playing field. One way the law incorporates compassion into its system is through the use of juries. Juries are a random, unbiased selection of people who will be asked to sit in a trial and decide a verdict of guilty or not guilty. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that “a person accused of criminal activity ‘has the right
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.
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’.
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.
The jury plays a crucial role in the courts of trial. They are an integral part in the Australian justice system. The jury system brings ordinary people into the courts everyday to judge whether a case is guilty or innocent. The role of the jury varies, depending on the different cases. In Australia, the court is ran by an adversary system. In this system “..individual litigants play a central part, initiating court action and largely determining the issues in dispute” (Ellis 2013, p. 133). In this essay I will be discussing the role of the jury system and how some believe the jury is one of the most important institutions in ensuring that Australia has an effective legal system, while others disagree. I will evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of a jury system.
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...
This stage is an examination of potential jurors to ensure a fair trial for the defendant. Ideally, voir dire will result in an impartial jury for the trial of the accused. On March 4, 2004 jury selection began for the trial of Scott Peterson. Nearly 100 potential jurors began answering questionnaires about their views on the death penalty and their opinions on extramarital affairs. The nearly 30-page questionnaire given to prospective jurors also included questions as whether they read Field and Stream, what stickers grace their car bumpers and whether they have lost a child. On April 14, 2004 Judge Alfred A. Delucchi dismissed an unidentified Redwood City woman after a brief meeting in his chambers. Defense attorney Mark Geragos two weeks early had accused the retired secretary of bragging to her friends on a bus trip to Reno, Nevada, that she has "passed the test" to get on Peterson's jury and that Peterson was "guilty as hell" and would "get what's due him." May 28, 2004 six men and six women were selected for Scott Peterson's murder trial all said they would be willing to sentence him to death if they convict him of killing his wife and the couple's fetus.
Arguments For and Against Juries The right to a trial by jury is a tradition that goes right to the the heart of the British legal system. It is a right fiercely fought for. and fiercely defended at those times when its powers have been seen to be under threat as those backing reforms are finding. The tradition of being "tried by a jury of one's peers" probably has its origins in Anglo Saxon custom, which dictated that an accused man could be acquitted if enough people came forward to swear his innocence.
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.
The criminal justice system is composed of agencies and processes established by governments to control crime and impose penalties on those who violate laws. The way criminal justice systems work depends on the jurisdiction that is in charge. Different jurisdictions have different ways of managing criminal justice processes. The components of the criminal justice system are law enforcement, prosecution, defense attorneys, courts, and corrections.
The criminal justice system is composed of three parts – Police, Courts and Corrections – and all three work together to protect an individual’s rights and the rights of society to live without fear of being a victim of crime. According to merriam-webster.com, crime is defined as “an act that is forbidden or omission of a duty that is commanded by public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law.” When all the three parts work together, it makes the criminal justice system function like a well tuned machine.
Long-drawn out trials that go on for years cause psychological stress, tension in the family of those involved in the case, and these trials make a huge dent in the money supply of the court system in the government. Each day members of the jury have to be accounted for and must receive money for their services. Using a judge is both cost-effective and smart. Additionally, judges usually don’t take as long to make decisions in court as they are both efficient in what they do and are well-informed of the subject, the particular person on trial, and they have the know-how to execute the correct sentence. “In 2010, 2,352 federal criminal defendants had a jury trial and 88% of these criminal jury trials ended in a conviction.” (Document A) Now on the one hand some...