Constitutional And Universal Culture Administer A Distinct Picture Of The Litigation System

The criminal trial process aims to provide justice for all those involved, while it succeeds in the majority of cases, it effectiveness is influenced and reduced by certain factors. These include the legal representation involved in a case and the availability of legal aid, the capacity of the jury assessing the trial, the credibility of scientific evidence and the impact of social media on the trial process. Due to such flaws the criminal trial process is not always an effective means of achieving justice.

Since the conflict model asserts that the criminal justice system’s purpose is to maintain economic and political control by the dominant class, it must be true that the dominant class has access to the system and even the laws that are applied to defendants by judges and by the process of civil procedure. The model informs us, that every decisive aspect of the criminal justice could potentially be controlled by a powerful person or entity. Even the jury selection process is informed by conflict model. In jury selection, the party with the most educated, savvy, and well-connected attorney – usually the costliest – can often control the composition of a jury according to race, gender, and political sway. The conflict model represents the system

In “The Adversary Judge” Frankel explains how realities of the trial create a “role conflict” between the ideally constructed impartial judge and the realistic adversary judge (Frankel, 1976). Throughout their day people play many roles, these roles are based on the expectations of the people around them and the personality of the person (Frankel, 1976). In particular, judges are expected to play the role of neutrality, intelligence, and patience. Their role is thought to be similar of an “umpire” (Frankel, 1976). It is necessary for them to be objective in order for a just and fair trial to take place. Yet, this ideal role does not occur under the pressure of realities. One reality that pushes away the idea of an “umpire” judge is the heated emotions that occur throughout the trial process. Frankel states” the courtroom explodes as people spring up at several tables shouting objections, usually loudly because they are in some haste and heat to cut off forbidden answers” (Frankel, 1976, p. 472). The attorney’s main goals throughout the trail is to ensure a win for their client leading to competitiveness between both parties. Attorneys do not want to hear they are wrong and always need to be one step ahead of their competitors. This causes the commotion and tense emotions that is usually seen in courts.

Introduction: While most people consider the system as an adversarial process, many cases are settled in an informal pattern of cooperation between the major actors in the justice process. (The prosecutor, defense attorney, judge, and other court personnel.)

The criminal courts are responsible for determining the guilt or innocence of the person that is accused (Griffiths, 2015, p.147). As well as the courts are supposed to conclude the appropriate sentence while protecting their rights of the accused. The outcome that comes from the criminal courts is that the judgement is made to be fair, impartial and no political intrusion. Furthermore, the main focus of the courts is the find the fundamental problems, the interagency and interdisciplinary collaboration and the accountability to the community. (Griffiths, 2015, p.147). The court is supposing to keep the fairness and equality through the society.

During her study of the Scottish criminal justice system, McBarnet was able to construct an idea of a “two-tier” justice system. In her work, McBarnet reported on the major disparity of proceedings and procedures between the higher and lower courts. Upon my observation of proceedings in the lower and higher courts, I believe this ‘gap’ is prominent in the NSW criminal adversarial system.

The Defence and Prosecution present arguments before impartial judges who decide on a verdict based on the strongest case in law. A jury may be summoned under the Juries Act 1927 (SA), and analyse the facts presented by both attorneys to determine a verdict by either a unanimous or a majority votes of the panel. The jury system allows the judicial arm to reflect the values of the broader community. An impartial and compassionate judiciary can address the needs of minorities by looking after disadvantaged in the community through legal aid (which provides advice to those who cannot afford it) or Nunga Courts (which enable Indigenous Australians to be tried according to culturally sensitive

The criminal trial process is an interesting process that takes place in Courtrooms all across the United States and throughout the globe. This study intends to set out the various steps in the criminal trial process in the American justice system. A trial is described as a "legal forum for resolving individual disputes, and in the case of a criminal charge, it is a means for establishing whether an accused person is legally guilty of an offense. The trial process varies with respect to whether the matter at issue is civil in nature or criminal. In either case, a jury acts as a fact-finding body for the court in assessing information and evidence that is presented by the respective parties in a case. A judge presides over the court and addresses all the legal issues that arise during the trial. A judge also instructs the jury how to apply the facts to the laws that will govern in a given case." (3rd Judicial District, 2012)

On observing the District Court a number of distinctions from the Local Courts were immediately made apparent. Without going in to detail about the actual structure of the courts, they seemed to fit more closely with the traditional schema of a typical courtroom. In particular the larger courtrooms with more facilities combined with the barristers and magistrates wearing their wig and robes seemed to instantly uphold the ideology of justice. It is interesting to note how appearances can automatically provide an impression that justice will be upheld. The

In the american court room there are several people involved. Some of the most important and lawful figures include: the judge, who is the main authority and the one responsible for justice. The prosecuting attorney, responsible for presenting the case against the defendant. The defense counsel, who is in

The primary source of the right to counsel is the Sixth Amendment. It states in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to have the Assistance of Counsel for defence. In this article, the development of the right to council will be discussed as well as when the right to council attaches to criminal procedures. The right to self- representation and the role of attorneys as it applies to right to council will be discussed as well.

The adversarial and inquisitorial trial systems are the two most widely used in the world, both operating in similar but different ways. The adversarial system is a system based on the notion of two adversaries battling in an arena before an impartial third party, with the emphasis on winning. There are five main elements of the adversarial system; the role of the judge, the role of the parties, the role of legal representation, burden and standard of proof and the rules of evidence of procedure. The inquisitorial system is a method of legal practice in which the judge endeavours to discover facts while simultaneously representing the interests of the state in a trial. In this system, the judge is primarily responsible for resolving the case by searching for evidence and questioning the witnesses as opposed to the adversarial system in which the judge is a passive recipient. In this essay I will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of both trial systems, look into a case study of each and then conclude with which system I think is best.

The two adversarial parties have full control over proceedings. This means that they are responsible for pre-trial procedures, and preparation and presentation of their respective cases. They must gather evidence, organise witnesses and employ experts. On a procedural level, they are also responsible for determining the time and place of the hearing. This role ensures that parties have the ability to present the best case

Discussion The issue of legal representation or lack thereof, as was demonstrated in the results, differs from the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research 2010 findings that 59.7% of persons charged in NSW Local Courts had legal representation. Despite this significant difference in statistical measurement, 9.7%, case by case observation revealed that all three of the cases without legal representation entered guilty pleas. Hence illustrating the implications of Dietrich v The Queen (1992) in that in Australia there is “no right to legal representation at

It could be argued that the need to have a jury trial possibly undermines the judiciary. Does the need for a jury, show a lack of confidence in the decision making ability of a judge, who has had professional training and been educated to a very high standard in order to do the same job as untrained members of the public. We can see that the judges themselves do not place much confidence in the academic ability of the jurors. During a trail, Mr. Justice Swallow commented “Gentlemen of the jury, the facts of this distressing and important case have already been put before you some four or five times…but so low is my opinion of your understanding that I think it necessary in the simplest language, to tell you the facts again.” If an expert in the profession believes that these people are incapable of understanding the circumstances based around the decision that they must make, surely this shows that there is too much importance rested on ill-equipped people. “If juries are not allowed to use mathematical theories to interpret evidence and instead have to fall back on their common sense, the wrong people may end up behind bars.”[7] Apart from their