Introduction
Judicial diversity has been a continuous topic of discussion in both society and in the English legal system. Currently, the process of the merit system causes a lack of diversity in the English bench, which is highly due to the undiverse characters of the upper reaches of the legal profession. There have been numerous unsuccessful attempts to promote diversity within the judiciary. The Constitution Reform Act 2005 (CRA 2005) was then introduced to ensure selection is based on merit and to promote judicial diversity. Lord Sumption views that the judiciary will remain very standardized in its makeup without any form of positive discrimination. This will create issues within the English legal system, as opportunities are not equal
…show more content…
Under the prior method of ‘tap on the shoulder’ from a senior judge, particular individuals were encouraged into the judiciary whereas others would not have been given a chance to apply. Under the merit system, applicants are limited as there is a condition of having proficient work experience in the legal profession. Alternative explanations include structural barriers and cultural bias. For example, women are discouraged by the judicial working practices due to familial responsibilities. Both women and BME feel unwelcome in the legal profession and the judiciary as merit tends to be equated with going to the right educational institutions and being part of an exclusive …show more content…
He believes it will take 50 years to see improvement in diversity of the English bench based on the statistics aforementioned. On the contrary, Mrs. Justice Dobbs believes that a female representative or an ethnic minority judge on the panel will not necessarily decide a case differently than a white male judge. Men and women do have different experiences, but this should not affect their decision-making process. If it does, it is not difficult for another individual of the opposite sex to comprehend it equally well. However, the presence of women and BME would enrich the courts and would possibly allow for a diverse judicial bench to better relate to claimants and defendants as such individuals have different
The first model to the judicial decision making is the attitudinal model. This model of judicial decision making speculates that a judge’s behavior can be predicted mostly by his or her policy attitudes. It perceives judges of the court as motivated by policy goals and unconstrained by the law. Therefore, they decide cases according to moral preference rather than by the meaning or intention of legal texts. One review of the attitudinal model is the fact it relied heavily on unreliable evidence. Also, the attitudinal model of decision making does not always interpret from explaining justice’s decisions at the Supreme Court. Most legal practitioners such as lawyers and judges are likely to think that a very simple attitudinal model is missing
Legal system is a comprehensive term that is used to confirm the existence of the law; it also explains the law-making process and how this is enforced on everyone. The Australian legal system regulates all level of governments, organisations, and all people whether they are Australian born or have migrated here, and they must obey Australia’s regulations. The legal system here was developed from the United Kingdom’s legal system, as Australia was a colony of the British. At a glance, the British government granted restricted rights to their colonies, including Australia to set local government system. This was intended to developed laws in local area, also to deal with specific situation at that time. As a result, the legal system in each of the colonies started to develop separately. According to Carvan J (2010) the Australian law is adopted from several sources, including the rules of equity, parliamentary laws, delegated legislations, judge-made laws, and international laws. (Austrlian Legal System, 2007)
In theory all jury systems (which have existed for almost 800 years) are fair and just.
Despite the efforts of lawyers and judges to eliminate racial discrimination in the courts, does racial bias play a part in today’s jury selection? Positive steps have been taken in past court cases to ensure fair and unbiased juries. Unfortunately, a popular strategy among lawyers is to incorporate racial bias without directing attention to their actions. They are taught to look for the unseen and to notice the unnoticed. The Supreme Court in its precedent setting decision on the case of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), is the first step to limiting racial discrimination in the court room. The process of selecting jurors begins with prospective jurors being brought into the courtroom, then separating them into smaller groups to be seated in the jury box. The judge and or attorneys ask questions with intent to determine if any juror is biased or cannot deal with the issues fairly. The question process is referred to as voir dire, a French word meaning, “to see to speak”. During voir dire, attorneys have the right to excuse a juror in peremptory challenges. Peremptory challenges are based on the potential juror admitting bias, acquaintanceship with one of the parties, personal knowledge of the facts, or the attorney believing he/she might not be impartial. In the case of Batson v. Kentucky, James Batson, a black man, was indicted for second-degree burglary and receipt of stolen goods. During the selection of the jury the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to strike out all of the four black potential jurors, leaving an all white jury. Batson’s attorney moved to discharge the venire, the list from which jurors may be selected, on the grounds that the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges violated his client’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to have a jury derived from a “cross-section of the community”(People v. Wheeler, 583 P.3d 748 [Calif. 1978]). The circuit court ruled in favor of the prosecutor and convicted Batson on both counts. This case went through the courts and finalized in the U.S. Supreme Court.
While lawmakers try to structure a system to uphold fair punishments, some people within the system seem to taint the judicial pool. Just Mercy is a book that talks about injustice in the legal system. The author describes cases and clients that he’s worked with that were up against all odds. As seen within the book “Just Mercy” by Bryan Stevenson, some enforcers tend to prey on certain races and act more biased with others. This dilemma can lead to many cases of injustice, just based on people’s thought
Despite legislation for equal opportunities, sexism is still evident in the workplace. Women have made great advancements in the workforce and have become an integral part of the labor market. They have greater access to higher education and as a result, greater access to traditionally male dominated professions such as law. While statistics show that women are equal to men in terms of their numbers in the law profession, it is clear however, that they have not yet achieved equality in all other areas of their employment. Discrimination in the form of gender, sex and sexual harassment continues to be a problem in today’s society.
The court system of any country is a fundamental aspect of the society. In this respect, there are no public institutions in Canada which are subject to public scrutiny like the court system. People expectations of how they are treated by others are guided by laws made by various levels of institutions of justice. The Canadian judicial system, particularly, has undergone major developments and challenges as well. This paper explores three published articles that report on the problem of patronage appointments what lies behind the confidence in the justice system and the relevance of gender and gender equality in the legal profession.
The jury system has evolved from a representation of all white men to both men and women from very diverse backgrounds. This is important if one is going to be tried in his/her community of peers.
Society expects the criminal justice system to provide justice for everyone by protecting the innocent, to punish and convict the guilty, and to rehabilitate them in an attempt to stop them reoffending. It is supposed to give fair justice to everyone, regardless of gender, but much is written that suggests that the criminal justice system is gender-biased. Gender bias was not formed by the justice system, but it does reflect the fundamental conditions and attitudes of society. The cost of gender bias to society, the criminal justice system, and to the people within it is enormous. To discuss if the criminal justice system is gender-biased, an understanding should be reached regarding what is meant by the term
The American Court System is an important part of American history and one of the many assets that makes America stand out from other countries. It thrives for justice through its structured and organized court systems. The structures and organizations are widely influenced by both the State and U.S Constitution. The courts have important characters that used their knowledge and roles to aim for equality and justice. These court systems have been influenced since the beginning of the United State of America. Today, these systems and law continue to change and adapt in order to keep and protect the peoples’ rights.
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.
From an equal justice perspective, “all people should be treated equally before the law and equality may best be achieved through individual discretion in the justice process” (Siegel and Worrall, 2013, page 20). Through this perspective, all criminals who commit the same crime would be equally subjected to the same form of punishment. Thus extralegal factors, which include the person’s gender, age, race or previous criminal activity, would not be considered by the judge, when they sentence the severity of the punishment. This limits the injustice within the system and any unfair treatment an offender a may receive while in the system. It also sets clear and rigid guidelines for judges to uphold during sentencing.
The given statement suggests that the emphasis on judicial diversity is unnecessary since there is no guarantee that a diverse judiciary would arrive at a different decision than that of a conservative judiciary. This essay attempts to argue that although there is no evidence that a diverse bench would radically change the outcome of a given case, the quality of justice will be substantially enhanced by the inclusion of a range of perspectives from which are currently not represented by the English judiciary.
“We are blessed in the united kingdom by a judiciary whose integrity, dependence, professional-ism and skill that is not in question. But we take such a condition for granted at our peril. Justice is a delicate plant. It has to be ruptured, protected, cared for” Straw, Jack (July, 2007).
... been appointed to look into the laws discriminatory to women at workplace. 5 percent of jobs have been embarked for women in all government and government-controlled organizations. (Bhutto, 1995)