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
...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.
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
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
The modern US version of a jury derived from ancient English law. It is said in the early 11th century, William the Conqueror brought a form of a jury system from Normandy that became the basis for early England’s juries. It was constructed of men who were sworn by oath to tell the king what they knew. King Henry II then expanded on the idea by using a group of white men with good morals to not only judge the accused, but also to investigate crimes. King Henry II had panels of 12 everyday, law abiding men; this aspect of it is much like modern juries. The difference is that these early jurors were “self-informing”. This means that they were expected to already have knowledge of the facts that would be presented in court prior to the trial. King Henry II’s first jurors were assigned the job of resolving the land disputes that were occurring in England. ...
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.
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.
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.
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.