Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Importance of jury system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Is trial by jury still relevant and appropriate?
Section 80 of the Australian Constitution contains a provision that states that “the trial of indictment of any offence...shall be by jury” (Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act), with some semblance of juries in Australia existing since the years following the arrival of the First Fleet in 1788. These “juries” were “comprised of six military officers… sitting with a military judicial officer, the Judge-Advocate” (Chesterman, 1999) and the notion of juries has since developed into the familiar bench of six and twelve members in civil and criminal cases, respectively (Supremecourt.vic.gov.au, n.d.). Questions concerning the relevancy and suitability of juries in regard to their role in
…show more content…
The evaluation of these factors is significant given the discourse surrounding the questions of reform to the jury system and whether juries are relevant at all.
The notion of being tried by a jury of one’s peers is arguably an intrinsic aspect of the jury system, with Section 80 of the Australian Constitution being “based on a provision contained in the United States' Constitution, which in turn rests on the philosophy that people… are entitled to have their guilt or innocence determined by … their peers” (Information and Research Services, 1997). Mark Israel (1998) comments on how, in Australia and New Zealand, indigenous people “seem to have only a very minor involvement in trials as jurors” despite “overrepresentation in trials as defendants”, later citing a 1984 case in Derby, Western Australia in which an all-white jury was empanelled in a town comprised of 60% Aboriginal inhabitants. Furthermore, Israel (1998) cites a research
…show more content…
This has, however, been recently challenged as greater research has been conducted. According to Schweitzer and Saks (2007) “CSI viewers were more critical of the forensic evidence presented at the trial, finding it less believable” whilst also “express[ing] more confidence in their verdicts than non-viewers”, but later go on to state that “viewers of general crime programs ... did not differ significantly from their non-viewing counterparts … suggesting that skepticism toward the forensic science testimony was specific to those whose diet consisted of heavy doses of forensic science television programs”. Professor Tom R. Tyler is quoted in Schweitzer and Saks (2007) stating that “no existing empirical research shows that [the CSI effect] actually occurs”. This stance is similarly mirrored in other research papers on the topic, including Tyler (2006) which states that “there is no direct research evidence that watching CSI has changed juror standards of reasonable doubt.” Baskin and Sommers (2010) further suggest that the personality characteristics of jurors, such as authoritarianism and narcissism, ease of being influenced, and
The American Jury system has been around for quite some time. It was the original idea that the framers of the constitution had wanted to have implemented as a means of trying people for their illegal acts, or for civil disputes. The jury system has stood the test of time as being very effective and useful for the justice system. Now it has come into question as to if the jury system is still the best method for trials. In the justice system there are two forms of trials, one being the standard jury trial, where 12 random members of society come together to decide the outcome of something. The other option would be to have a bench trial. In a bench trial, the judge is the only one deciding the fate of the accused. While both methods are viable
This chapter is mainly devoted to the jury selection process and how it is taken care
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.
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.
With jury bias we examined that the perspective taking, victim impact statements and race of the victim had no main effects with ps > 0.26 and no significant interactions either with ps > 0.64.
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.
The gross over representation of indigenous people in the Australian criminal justice system (CJS) is so disturbingly evident that it is never the source of debate. Rather it is the starting point of discussions centring on the source and solutions to this prominent social, cultural and political issue. Discourse surrounds not only the economic and social disadvantage of indigenous communities, but also the systemic racism and continuing intergenerational trauma resulting for the unjust colonisation of a nation which has profited whites at the detriment to indigenous people throughout history. In respect to the currently CJS, trepidations are raised by indigenous communities around the lack of culturally diverse laws and punishments within the system. The overtly western system does not provide a viable space for indigenous
The importance of a jury makes it necessary to understand its function, strengths and weaknesses in a criminal matter. Both the state and federal courts follow the same procedure in impaneling the jury. Most states do not accord minors the right to jury trial in court proceedings related to juvenile delinquency. The jury essentially hears the evidence presented against the defendant and potential defenses. It will then weigh the evidence and ultimately determine if the evidence satisfies the criminal offenses that the defendant has been charged, beyond any reasonable doubt. Numerous and varied rules often surround the jury. The jury mainly focuses on criminal cases because these cases put a person’s liberty at risk. Defendants do not have a right to jury trial if their jail term does not exceed six months. All jurors need to recognize the fact that jury service is a critical duty of citizenship. They may also decide questions that involve crimes for which a trial judge fine, place on probation, or confine defendant to prison. Nevertheless, a jury does not play any role in sentencing, but instead leaves it upon the trial judge to make this decision following all the submissions made by both sides. Overall, the court system must rely upon a jury for the protection of liberty, life, and the pursuit of
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.
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
Trial by jury was introduced into the British judicial system in 1215 via the Magna Carta; whereby it declared that “No freeman shall be seized, or imprisoned... excepting by the lawful judgement of his peers...” (Towl and Crighton, 2010, p. 228). June 2015 marks the 800th anniversary of this fundamental directive, which since adoption has remained a ‘jewel’ within the criminal justice system (CJS). It exists in many jurisdictions around the world to this day, although to different degrees and with countless alterations. Significantly, public confidence is regarded as paramount and crucial to the continuation of the jury system (Auld, 2001). England and Wales’ juries consist of 12 lay persons, aged 18 to 70 years (Newburn, 2007). The upper age limit is set to rise to 75 imminently, to take into account longer life expectancies (MoJ, 2014).
A fundamental principle of the Queensland’s Court system is the successful delivering of just outcomes for all stakeholders in any trial. The law has been an integral part of society and continues to be the foundation of a civilian community, where, when applied correctly, many disputes can be resolved in a just manner. This report explores the issue of whether courts are intimidating and out of touch, and if presented so, what improvements have been made to these factors to remain valideffective in the delivering of just outcomes. The information in this report was generated based on thorough online research along with information gathered from a visit to the Queensland Courts.
The Australian Legal System has a rich and detailed history dating from 1066. Law is made in Parliament. We have four sources of law and three courts with different jurisdictions that interpret the law when giving out justice. Important doctrines act as the corner-stones of our legal system. There is a procedure in the courts for making appeals. Separation of powers exists between officials in the courts, the parliament and the Executive. Everyone in Australia is treated equally under the Rule of Law, no matter their office or status. The Law is always changing as society changes, but it can never be perfect and cannot please everyone.