Marymount College (Burleigh Waters). Legal Studies IA 2 Student name: Adi Liddell. Student number s 368849 Teacher Mrs Fraser Date Issued 23/02/2022 Due date 24/03/2022 Marking summary Criterion Marks allocated Provisional marks Comprehending 5 Selecting 4 Analysing 6 Evaluating 6 Creating a response 4 Overall 25 INQUIRY REPORT The legal issue of the jury system law reform in a dynamic society Create an inquiry report analysing the nature, scope and viewpoints on the jury system, religious discrimination, and juvenile justice. Using this analysis, evaluate two legal alternatives and make one recommendation that maximises a just and equitable legal outcome. 1500-2000 words Total words: Less in-text citations = Word count. …show more content…
Currently, the Jury Act, 1995. The purpose of this report is to examine the legal elements of the jury system in Australia, to determine the nature and scope of the Jury Act 1995 and then analyse the reform possibilities for the Act. Legal alternatives to reform the law in Queensland legislation will be provided and evaluated and a recommendation will be made to maximise just and equitable legal outcomes that provide further protections for the Jury Act 1995. NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE ISSUE The Jury Act 1995 is the law which governs all juries in Queensland. Jurors will sit in a jury panel consisting of four persons for a civil trial and twelve persons for a criminal trial (Queensland legislation, 2017). The Jury Act 1995 additionally states that a jury trial allows for a panel of either ten or eleven if one or two of the original jurors are discharged. Queensland Legislation, 2017 (Queensland Legislation, 2017). Juries are selected at random and represent the values and legal expectations of peers, this is to ensure they remain impartial. The Juries role is to decide if the accused is either guilty or innocent, or in the case of civil trials, fault and damages based on admissible evidence presented in the trial (Federal Court of Australia, n.d). Section 80 of the Australian Constitution states that the right to trial by jury is restricted based on the nature of the offence, …show more content…
This proposed reform entails conducting extensive background checks on social media and utilizing specialized questionnaires to detect any potential biases or affiliations as part of the pre-trial screening process. An additional alternative could be to abolish the Act completely and replace it with a panelled jury of three various members of the court to perform an unbiased judgement additional to the trial’s judge, this allows the “jury” to consist of persons who have an actual understanding of legal elements and the fundamental difference between proving someone as innocent, and proving someone is guilty ‘beyond reasonable
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
Seymour Wishman was a former defense lawyer and prosecutor, and the author of "Anatomy of a Jury," the novel "Nothing Personal" and a memoir "Confessions of a Criminal Lawyer." "Anatomy of a Jury" is Seymour Wishman's third book about the criminal justice system and those who participate in it. He is a known writer and very highly respected "person of the law." Many believe that the purpose of this book is to put you in the shoes of not only the defendant but into the shoes of the prosecutor, the judge, the defense lawyer and above all the jury. He did not want to prove a point to anyone or set out a specific message. He simply wanted to show and explain to his readers how the jury system really works. Instead of writing a book solely on the facts on how a jury system works, Wishman decides to include a story so it is easier and more interesting for his readers to follow along with.
In theory all jury systems (which have existed for almost 800 years) are fair and just.
Over 80 million Americans alive today have been called to jury duty at some point in their lives (Henley 5). Out of these 80 million individuals, roughly 30% (or 24 million) have been eliminated from the jury selection process due to the use of peremptory challenges (5). According to Black’s Law Dictionary, a peremptory challenge is a challenge that “need not be supported by any reason.” Although these challenges are commonplace in today’s courts, several Supreme Court cases have questioned the constitutionality of their place in the legal system. This paper will explore the history of peremptory challenges, theories behind them, a few pertinent cases, and reform progress.
Mention the pros and cons of our jury system and possible alternatives of it. Also, identify the group dynamics of the jury members
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.
The questions should be shaped around the individual’s views and also his or her ability to think analytically. Nevertheless, without these important questions, an individual may not qualify for the job. For example, Juror #10, the Garage Owner was an individual who was prejudiced against the defendant. Juror #10 was quick to agree that the defendant is guilty because of his personal view on the defendant’s color and where he lives. By, incorporating critical thinking questions, this may assist to find individuals who do not let their own personal views cloud their judgement and their decision
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.
The merits of both the adversarial and inquisitorial system will be explored throughout this paper. The Australian rule of law best describes as all law should be applied equally and fairly. The five vital operations of the rule of law includes fairness, rationality, predictability, consistency, and impartially. The adversarial system adopts these operations by having a jury decide on the verdict and the judge being an impartial decision maker. In contrast, the inquisitorial system relies heavily on the judge. This can result in abusive power and bias of the judge when hearing evidence and delivering verdicts. The operations of the rule of law determine why the rule of law is best served by the adversarial system in Australia.
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’.
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.
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 crowded courtroom was absolutely silent as the 12 all white and all men took their seats at the jury box. Chief Justice Albert Mason, one of the presiding judges in the murder case, asked Charles I. Richards, the foreman, to rise. Mr. Richards was asked to read the verdict. “Not guilty”, replied the foreman. Even though the circumstantial and physical evidence pointed to Lizzie Borden guilty of killing her step-mother and father, the all-male jury, men of some financial means, could not fathom that a woman who is well bred and a Sunday school teacher could possibly do such a heinous crime (Linder 7).
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.