Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Role of the supreme court
Role of the supreme court
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Role of the supreme court
The Criminal Court and Lay People
The Criminal court deals with different types of criminal jurisdictions and offences dealt with within the courts and also the appeals routes of each criminal structure. They also evaluate the efficiency of the current Criminal structure. The roles and powers Lay Magistrates have on the Criminal court while explaining the selection roles of Juries also giving evaluation of the use of Lay people within the Criminal justice system. There are three different types of offences which are dealt with in the Criminal Courts, summary offences which are the least serious offences and are normally dealt with in the Magistrate Courts. These are offences such as common assault and most driving offences. The 2ndtype of offence
…show more content…
Also, indictable offences which are tried in the Crown for trail conviction and preliminary hearing in the Magistrate court. Lay Magistrates try 97% of all criminal cases and deal with hearings in 3% of the cases. To be on a Jury you must be at aged between 18-70, registered to vote and a resident for at least 5 yearsin the UK. There are disqualifications such as anyone currently on bail or those not eligible to vote. There are advantages and disadvantages of using lay people in the criminal justice system. The advantages would be they represent a cross section of society, cost a very cheap way of delivering justiceand some of the disadvantages would be prosecution bias and cases hardened believe the police too …show more content…
(2007) The English legal system. 5th edn. London: Hodder Education Accessed 10/11/15
The Supreme Court, Role of the Supreme Court, Available at: https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/role-of-the-supreme-court.html Accessed Online
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.
Criminal law attempts to balance the rights of individuals to freedom from interference with person or property, and society’s need for order. Procedural matters, the rights of citizens and powers of the state, specific offences and defences, and punishment and compensation are some of the ways society and the criminal justice system interact.
As was present when visiting the crown court in Woodgreen, the case where an individual was accused of the supply of drugs and theft, where the jury was dismissed. The judge gave legal reasoning for why. In this trial it was due to new information, which had arisen which, could manipulate the verdict given for the first count heard. This is a different approach to of the magistrates court where 3 lay individuals, or a district judge hears the trial the magistrate/s play a big part in the magistrates court, however only after hearing all evidence, and witness statements This was visible in the trial watched at Westminster magistrates court, where there was an individual popular in the public eye accused of 2 accounts of sexual assault, and eight incident assaults. In the trial the representatives of the claimant and defendant, and witnesses played an important part in the trial. There were no outcomes of the crown and magistrate’s court when visited, and both cases were timetabled for another hearing. This system was introduced by the Woolf reforms, after great delays in trials. The timetable enables individuals to have their case in a reasonable time
However, this system of laws changed much throughout the century. The Chancery became merely a joke for there you could not present evidence during trials and Parliament came to view it as necessary for matters of will and divorce to be referred to new civil courts instead of the church. In 1873 the 3 common law courts and the Chancery were combined to make the Supreme Court
The second component of the criminal justice system is the court system. They court system is composed of lawyers, judges, and juries. Their job is to insure that everyone receives a fair trial, determine guilt or innocence, and apply sentences on guilty parties. The court system will contain one judge, and a jury of twelve citizens. The jury of the court will determine the guilt or innocence of the individual. The jury will also recommend a sentence for the crime the individual committed. Even though the jury makes the recommendation for the sentencing of the crime, the judge will follow pre-determined sentencing guidelines to make a final decision.
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.
In 1992, Cameron Todd Willingham was convicted of arson murder, where a fire that was presumably started by him, killed his three children, and in 2004 he was put to death. Later, the Texas Forensic Science Commission, established in 2005, found that none of the evidence used while prosecuting Mr. Willingham was valid, and that the fire was in fact, accidental. Unfortunately, many cases like this have occurred in our nation’s history, where human error was to blame for convicting an innocent person. The American Justice system will only be as accurate as the science and technology that we have in place to remove human error during the process. The movie The Wrong Man is a perfect example of human error in the justice system convicting an innocent
The Role of the Jury in a Crown Court For all court appearances, jurors are selected randomly, by an official at the crown court from the electoral registers. In order to be selected for a jury the person must be: between the ages of 18-70; have lived in the country for at least 5years and be registered as a parliamentary elector. In 2003 a new act was passed, The Criminal Justice Act, this meant that everybody was eligible to be called for jury service. This new act does not excuse anyone in the legal profession, justice system or the health system.
The criminal trial process is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society to a great extent. For the law to be effective, the criminal trial process must reflect what is accepted by society to be a breach of moral and ethical conduct and the extent to which protections are granted to the victims, the offenders and the community. For these reasons, the criminal trial process is effectively able to achieve this in the areas of the adversary system, the system of appeals, legal aid and the jury system.
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
A jury system inquires fairness in a court case. A jury is “A group of citizens called to hear a trial of a criminal prosecution of a lawsuit, decide the factual questions of guilt or innocence or determine the prevailing party (winner) in a lawsuit and the amount to be paid, if any, by the loser” (Law.com Legal Dictionary 2014). As a jury member they are obligated to tell the truth and give an honest response. The jury system randomly selects 12 people for each court case. Once you are 18 years old and registered you can be selected for jury service. There are two categories of people who cannot serve and that is people who are excluded from the jury roll and who are exempt from jury service (NSW Government 2014). Those who are excluded are people with criminal convictions and who hold high positions in public office. Those exempted are due to their employment (NSW Government 2014). As a jury member you are expected to dress appropriately, be honest, and give fu...
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...
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.
Law is a tool in society as it helps to maintain social control, promoting social justice. The way law functions in society and its social institution provide a mechanism for solutions. There are many different theories of the function of law in relation to society in considering the insight they bring to different socio-legal and criminological problems. In the discussion of law’s role in social theory, Leon Petrażycki and Eugen Ehrlich share similar beliefs in the jurisprudence of society. They focused their work on the experience of individuals in establishing meaning in their legal relations with others based on the question of what it means to be a participant in law. Jürgen Habermas presents a relationship between law and morality. From a certain standpoint, law is a key steering mechanism in society as it plays an educational role in promoting conducts, a mean of communication and it
Laws serve several purposes in the criminal justice system. The main purpose of criminal law is to protect, serve, and limit human actions and to help guide human conduct. Also, laws provide penalties and punishment against those who are guilty of committing crimes against property or persons. In the modern world, there are three choices in dealing with criminals’ namely criminal punishment, private action and executive control. Although both private action and executive control are advantageous in terms of costs and speed, they present big dangers that discourage their use unless in exceptional situations. The second purpose of criminal law is to punish the offender. Punishing the offender is the most important purpose of criminal law since by doing so; it discourages him from committing crime again while making him or her pay for their crimes. Retribution does not mean inflicting physical punishment by incarceration only, but it also may include things like rehabilitation and financial retribution among other things. The last purpose of criminal law is to protect the community from criminals. Criminal law acts as the means through which the society protects itself from those who are harmful or dangerous to it. This is achieved through sentences meant to act as a way of deterring the offender from repeating the same crime in the future.