1.Intro The jury system for Australia is not a fair system. There are many fault with the structure of how it is decided and how is picked. The jury should be 100% fair and not biased in any way, if this is not the case a criminal or civil offences could be charged for the wrong thing. Some reasons why the jury system is not a fair system is because Ordinary people may not understand complex legal technicalities, some people are exempt from serving, the jury is not a true cross-section of society and also It is difficult for people to remain completely impartial, especially if they are influenced by the media coverage of the trial.
Compared to other countries, America is a land of freedom and endless rights. For example one of the rights are freedom of speech, why not express that feeling of power? It 's understandable that people do not want to serve on a jury, because of time not well spent in their opinions. As a
1.0 Introduction Section 80 guarantees the right to trial by jury. The Queensland Jury Act 1995 provides the current legislation which decrees that all trials on indictment must be by jury. In the ninety years since this legislation was passed, an increase of trial complexity has occurred, leaving many jurors with the inability to comprehend the information and evidence procured in a trial. This proceeds to make lay juries ineffective and unreliable. To remedy the situation, specialised juries should be introduced to minimize the amount of incorrect verdicts, misunderstandings in court, jury misconduct, and avoidance of jury duty.
This is stated in Document C in the Jury System Mini-Q “Observers of the American jury system have remarked on its ability to elevate ordinary citizens into self-governors…” This is stating that the jury system is let alone remarkable that it is also a way that will increase the motives of people to present them to the government. On the Importance of the Jury System it states that “The Jury service is a duty of citizenship, similar to paying taxes and voting.” This is saying that people view this as an act of duty that just as paying taxes and voting people have to give back to their government and participate in the jury trial. Another quote from The Role of the Public is “Courts have a responsibility to perform at a higher level of respect to citizens serving as jurors and to improve every aspect of their jury systems.”
The American Jury System offers the United States citizens an opportunity to be proven guilty or innocent when a crime has been committed. The twelve person jury system was established in England hundreds of years ago. Originally this system was made up of twelve men and this was huge because they had the power to go against what the judge wanted in court. There are many vital points as to why our American jury system is successful; jury trials by the numbers, ownership by jury members towards the accused, how reliable or unreliable evidence is viewed by jurors, gender balance and the detailed screening process in which jurors are selected.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AMERICA'S JURY SYSTEM Eighteen out of one-hundred people are summoned for jury duty each year. Each jury member a normal person whose decisions are influenced by the world’s culture and affected by their busy schedules. Therefore, Americas jury systems are no longer effective in the twenty-first century, as a result of outside opinions, beliefs, and events taking place in our world. First, jury members in today's society don't have time to recall for jury duty. In fact, jury duty is often dreaded or avoided among Americans.
Jury service is necessary for our society to function because it’s an opportunity to reflect on our shared constitutional values. Jury duty is an obligation of citizenship just like paying your taxes or voting. You are invited to participate and be involved in the most personal, and tragic events in the community. A jury decides whether a person lives or dies or whether a company goes bankrupt. “It may well be the closest you ever come to the Constitution- not just exercising a right it gives you, but participating in the process through which constitutional rights and values come alive in practice” (FERGUSON, The Antlantic, 2013).
The history of jury nullification goes all the way back to the 1670s. In Bushell’s case, the jury’s power to nullify law became an important part of the Common legal system. Although the defendants of the case were found guilty and charged with substantial evidence, the jury members acquitted and refused to convict the defendants. Thereafter, the judge ordered the jury to change their verdict, and without any agreement from the jurors, the judge found them
The creation of the law began with the case of Jake Silverman. Silverman was on trial for 2nd degree murder, and most likely would have received the death penalty if convicted. 11 of the 12 jurors were for the conviction, but one juror held out, leading to Silverman only being charged with manslaughter and being sentenced to three years in prison. This lead to controversy throughout the state. The newspaper The Oregonian said in response to the case, “This newspaper's opinion is that the increased urbanization of American life ... and the vast immigration into America from southern and eastern Europe, of people untrained in the jury system, have combined to make the jury of twelve increasingly unwieldy and unsatisfactory.”
The US Constitution gives American the right to a criminal trial by jury, and the Bill of Rights gives us the right to impartial jury in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments. To truly be impartial jury and avoid biased decisions. The jury of twelve ordinary citizens swarms to solely
The relevance of juries in the Australian criminal system given the expansion in modern technology has been questioned regarding the effectiveness of ordinary people judging complex legal issues. The jury system was developed in England between the 12th and 15th century, in a time when courts relied more on the theory of a jury judging its own peers. With complex evidence presented in courts and the advances in technology available to the average citizen, the use of the jury system has been reported to have problems regarding the comprehension and impartiality. There are many pros and cons to the jury system currently in use in our Australian legal system, for the jury system to be able to work coherently with our legal system these pros and
This essay will briefly discuss the role of the jury and how it works, from the principle behind it, to the method with which members are selected, and to the powers available to jurors. Moreover, it will outline advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury, and it will point out a couple of ways which could ameliorate this type of trial. Trial by jury has been a part of the criminal justice system since the 12th century (Davies, 2015), it is considered an ancient right and a symbol of liberty (Hostettler, 2004). It creates no precedent and it can decide challenging cases equitably without making bad law, it also brings members of the public into the administration of justice and into an understanding of legal and human rights (Hostettler,
Jury systems exist all around the world. Many have a long history, while others are just emerging. Juries of different countries examine trials and decide on many factors in a court case. They play a vital role in court and are the deciding factor about whether a victim is guilty or not. The role of a jury may be different depending on the country.