Arguments For and Against Juries
The right to a trial by jury is a tradition that goes right to the heart of the British legal system. It is a right fiercely fought for, and fiercely defended at those times when its powers have been seen to be under threat - as those backing reforms are finding. The tradition of being "tried by a jury of ones peers" probably has its origins in Anglo Saxon custom, which dictated that an accused man could be acquitted if enough people came forward to swear his innocence. Trial by jury was first enshrined in law in what has been seen as the world's first proclamation of human rights - the Magna Carter. The document, decreed in 1215 by King John after a rebellion by
…show more content…
Minor offences, such as drunkenness, could only be tried by magistrates, and major offences, such as murder and rape, only by jury. The government now wants to limit the number of cases which are "triable either way".
There have been many debates throughout time about the effectivness of juries. SWR worldwide was commisioned by The Bar Council and The Law Society to conduct research of 903 members of the public aged between 18 and over across England. The findings were as follows;
[IMAGE]
The above chart shows a clear agreement of the general public on juries and the trust they show in their abilities. Similarly the research showed that the public has more faith in police and juries than others in the justice system.
· Respondents are most likely to have confidence in the police (81%) and juries (80%) than in other players in the justice system.
· Most think a jury of 12 individuals rather than a judge and two magistrates would be more likely to reflect their own (73%) and society at large's (80%) views and values.
· In fact, two thirds (64%) say that, should they appear as a defendant in court, they would prefer to have a jury of their peers rather than a judge and two magistrates or a judge alone decide their case.
However, the same people that make the argument against juries may criticise those who
In Business Insider article “This is Why Juries Shouldn’t Decide Court Cases” Erin Fuchs argues that court cases in the US shouldn’t be resolved by Juries. Erin Fuchs is completely correct. Cases should not be solved by bias and inexperienced and unwillingness people in law. In the article Professor Peter Van Koppen compared jurors to unequipped people acting as your doctors. In his 2009 essay it states “you wouldn’t want a panel of lay people acting as doctors.” This comparison makes a lot of sense. If you were a “criminal” and you had a case that meant life or death, would you want some bias and not prepared random people off the streets choosing if you are going to die or live? Some horrible criminals get big breaks because some unprepared
In order to identify the advantages and disadvantage of the tribunal system and the court system it is necessary to firstly identify what they are, their purpose and then what the advantages and disadvantages of these two systems of dispute resolution are.
Capital Punishment is an issue that has been argued over from the dinner table in
Every day people are convicted of crimes or arrested for other reasons. Once they are convicted they are summoned to court, this begins the jury process. Citizens are randomly chosen to serve on jury duty. The citizens on the jury will use the jury system to determine if the person being accused is guilty or innocent. Trials can become very long or they can be short it just depends on the topic and how long it takes to decide on what the consequences will be. The jury system is the main trial and the main decision of whether or not someone is right or wrong.
Jury nullification is when a jury acquits a defendant who it believes is guilty of the crime he is charged (Hickey, 2010. p. 370). This is because the jury chose to ignore the facts of the case and the judge instructions, and based his or her decision on personal opinion. If we are going to allow jury nullification we may as well not take up the tax-payer’s money to even take it to trial. Nullification – The act of making a law null and void (nullifying). For example, during prohibition, many juries found defendants innocent, even when the state had proven its case, because they did not think the law should exist. State legislatures also have nullified federal laws within their borders, creating a nullification crisis for the federal
Juries exists in the criminal trial to listen to the case presented to them and, as a third, non-bias party, decide beyond reasonable doubt if the accused is guilty. For the use of a trial by juror to be effective, no bias should exists in the jurors judgments, the jurors should understand clearly their role and key legal terms, and the jury system should represent the communities standards and views whilst upholding the rights of the accused and society and remain cost and time effective.
For this criteria I will be producing a written evaluation of the effectiveness of magistrates and juries in the administration of justice in the English legal system.
Justice Evatt delivered a paper to the Australian Legal Convention which entitled “The Jury System in Australia” in 1936 . Justice Evatt’s thesis of Jury trials was that “in modern day society the jury system is regarded as an essential feature of real democracy”. Jury trials in the nineteenth century were found way before in four colonies Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia . When Trial by Judge alone was first introduced in South Australian thirty eight were held in the Supreme Court between 1989 and 1993, meaning all annual percentage of all criminal trials in the court ranged between 3.9% and 8.9% . The Juries Act SA 1927 was amended many times making some major changes. In 1966, women were introduced in the South Australian Jury system as only men were capable of serving on Juries. An increase to the number of jurors available to contribute in a criminal trial was amended in 2004 . It now states in the Juries Act 1927 under section 6A that if court agrees there are good reasons to add additional jurors of 2 or 3 it can be empanelled for a criminal trial .
In the Australian legal system, juries have been the subject of debate for many years. Should we have them for criminal trials or will justice be done better through trial by judge alone?
This essay will discuss the role of the magistrate and jury in the English and Welsh legal decision-making process. It will assess both the advantages and disadvantages of both mechanisms and give an opinion on the contribution they make in the process.
It is the right of the jury to judge what the facts are, what the law
William the Conqueror introduced the jury system into England in 1066 after the battle of Hastings. It wasn’t until the 14th century when their roll came to determiner of fact in a case.
Trial by Jury and Alternatives to It In order to decide whether or not trial by jury should or should not
Everyone in the United States have specific rights when they are criminally accused. “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” This quote was from Thomas Jefferson. Trial by jury goes along with everyone having rights when they are accused, it is one of the basic things in the bill of rights, that when you are accused, you have the right to a trial by jury. There are many other rights as well.
The death Penalty is a very controversial topic to many. Some believe that the death penalty should not only be in place but there should be more executions every year. While others believe that the death penalty is going out of style and it is not serving its purpose of deterring crime as it did before. Although there are many claims supporting both sides still over half of Americans are for capital punishment in some way, but what causes someone to be sentenced to death? According to the article “Against the American System of Capital Punishment” by Jack Greenberg the worst crime is, “a putative killer of one’s parent or child” (Greenberg). What makes this the worst crime? And out of the few executions are these the only people getting