Causation and Juries Causation is an element of ‘Result Crimes’, in which the conduct itself does not constitute a crime, for example, shooting a gun, but rather the conduct along with it’s harmful consequence, for example, shooting a gun at a person and the person dying. It is this gap between the conduct and harmful result, which gives rise to the uncertainty as to who’s conduct caused the harmful result, and even if the harmful result was due to a human action, or just a natural event. When determining the chain of causal events leading up to a result, only the facts are relevant. However, once the causes are determined, principles of law must be applied to identify which of these causal acts were unlawful, as a person cannot be convicted for an innocent act. Therefore, causation is a question of fact and law. The main method for identifying causes to a harmful result is the ‘But-For’ test, with which all actions but for which the harmful result would not have occurred, are causes of the result. In the majority of cases, questions of causation are simple, even in homicide cases where the burden of proof lies on the prosecution. For example (1.0), if A shoots B, and B drops dead on the spot, it does not have to be proven that it was the bullet from A’s gun entering B’s heart and preventing blood carrying oxygen to the body, which caused death, as it is obvious. Questions of causation become complicated when there is no obvious, direct single cause to a harmful result. In such cases, there can be an infinite number of ‘but-for’ causes, tracing back to the actions of Adam and Eve. The jury have to determine the significa... ... middle of paper ... ...lity for the crime committed, even if it were not for their negligence or refusal to seek remedy, the harm result would not have been so severe. This is displayed in the case of Blaue. This liberal concept that a person should never be discriminated against for acting within their basic rights (for example: freedom of religion; freedom to move freely in the world as they please) is quite a difficult one for a jury to uphold. For example (1.3), ‘in the eyes of the law’ a female doctor who is sexually assaulted whist walking through a town centre in mid-afternoon, is indifferent to a prostitute who is sexually assaulted whist walking through a ‘red-light’ district at midnight. However, the jury consist of lay people from all aspects of society, who are susceptible to the common stereotypes and prejudices society breeds.
Jury Bias 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 with ps > 0.64. Jury Race The race of the jury was divided into white and non-white participants. An ANOVA was then run with perspective taking, victim impact statements, and race of the victim as the between-participants factors to test against empathy felt for the defendant, for the victim, for the victim’s significant others. White participants. We observed that there was a main effect with the race of the jury and the empathy felt by the jury for the victim.
The New York Times bestseller book titled Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case examines the O.J. Simpson criminal trial of the mid-1990s. The author, Alan M. Dershowitz, relates the Simpson case to the broad functions and perspectives of the American criminal justice system as a whole. A Harvard law school teacher at the time and one of the most renowned legal minds in the country, Dershowitz served as one of O.J. Simpson’s twelve defense lawyers during the trial. Dershowitz utilizes the Simpson case to illustrate how today’s criminal justice system operates and relates it to the misperceptions of the public. Many outside spectators of the case firmly believed that Simpson committed the crimes for which he was charged for. Therefore, much of the public was simply dumbfounded when Simpson was acquitted. Dershowitz attempts to explain why the jury acquitted Simpson by examining the entire American criminal justice system as a whole.
The first example of a case that was solved using ballistics is the case of Manuel Rojas versus the death of Valentina Giles Rogue. In this case Valentina was roughly twenty years old and she was at her apartment, she had the simple desire for peace and quiet nevertheless there was noise coming from outside her apartment. There were some drug dealers loitering outside her apartment that was located in Santa Ana and because she spoke to them she ended up getting shot in the chest at a close range. Valentina still continued to climb up her stairs with the wound and died in front of her twenty-four year old son and his wife. The Orange County were unable to link the shooter m. In 2009 the investigators of the case asked Edward for help to link the shooter to the scene. With the help of the company's newly developed ballistics analysis system called IBIS BULLETTRAX-3D the investigators were able to links Manuel Rojas to the murder of Valentina (Forensic technology 2016). The second case example is a case where a man fired a gun eight times into the air in North Charleston, South Carolina in March of 2007. The shell casing were collected and entered into National integrated ballistic information network (NIBIN). On July of 2007 a man shot three people in their apartment so there were no eye witnesses and the investigation did not find a gun. Although
1. Often, it is concluded that a lone gunman couldn’t have made the shots in the short seconds of the shooting (Rubinstein 4).
A crime being committed is the first event to initiate our criminal justice system. On June 12th 1994 a double murder was reported at the residence of Nicole Brown Simpson the ex-wife of the then beloved Orenthal James (OJ) Simpson. It was discovered that Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman had been brutally murdered and the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) began their investigation, this being the second step in our criminal justice system.
The use of the jury in some trials shows how the everyday atmosphere is brought into the courtroom. Jurors have a part in deciding the outcomes of cases and as a collective decide the extent of the harm in the case. They apply socially accepted norms to the courtroom when determining the enforceable situation of the alleged criminal (Garfinkel: 104). A juror is asked to be a blank slate when entering the courtroom. However, what needs to taken into consideration is the fact that each individual carries his or her own values, bias and beliefs in any situation. They decide to what extent the case at hand goes against the standards of the normal individual. The definition of normal in this case is subjected to the context in which the event is
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 American Jury system is a judicial process that has been revered as being one of the key practices that ensure the liberties that the United States holds dear. The founding fathers considered it vital to ensuring a fair trial and it has continued to be seen as such. This system isn’t perfect, but it’s still an incredibly valuable tool for democracy, if used well. The American jury system, when used correctly, engages citizens with their local government, creates a wide distribution of power, and ensures impartial rulings.
A lot of countries use a jury system. Some are very different and some are very similar. Some countries don't have a jury system. Some countries have a jury system, but don't use it. Others have jury systems, but they are different than the one we know here in the US.
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.
Most countries in the world today do not use juries, and only a small percentage of cases in the United States are decided by juries. So it has been proven successful and holding trials without juries are certainly a possibility for our future. In may in fact be in society’s best interest to change or rather improve a system that is outdated and doesn’t always serve the people justice. A person has a right to choose between a jury of his peers of a bench (judge only) trial. It’s likely that citizens may prefer a jury trial as they may feel that pool of random citizens may be less critical or harsh than a judge, but in all honesty, if we’re talking about fairness, a judge who is an informed and trained professional definitely has a better idea of how to sentence a person on trial and looks at the evidence in a holistic way. A bench trial is better because it’s more efficient and cost-effective, judges are well-educated professionals, and juries may be biased or incompetent.
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’.
of law has proved to be confusing to both juries and judges due to the
When a suspect’s weapon is examined in the lab, it will be test fired into a box filled with cotton or a tank of water to provide the examiner with the bullets and cartridges with a known history. Using a microscope, the known cartridges are compared with the ones in question. With some patience, skill, and a little luck, experts can definitively say that a certain firearm and no other fired this bullet, or ejected this cartridge.
in criminal law and Beckett Ltd v. Lyons [1967] 1 All ER 833 the law