Effectiveness of the Criminal Trial Process as a Means of Achieving Justice

Unfortunately, these shows also create a false expectation that clear and definite evidence can be shown for any case, which is not true. Jurors expect every case to have thorough scientific evidence from the best and most modern technology and to look exactly as it does on a television show (Shelton). Radford said, “Science does not operate on certainties.” During an investigation, scientists don’t ever say that the DNA being tested is a “match” to the suspect because nothing can ever be a definite match. Instead, their vocabulary consists of phrases such as

There are many parts of the courtroom and the process of convicting a criminal. The courtroom work group has a major role in convicting and finalizing a case. In the courtroom work group, there are three groups of people that hold the entire courtroom together. Without the work group, the courtroom would not flow, and coming to a conclusion to the case would not be as easy. The work group is made up of the Judge, the Defense Counsel and the Prosecution. They work together to reach a result, in the case by staying in contact on a daily basis. There are many roles in the work group, and if they are not all followed through with then the results could be different than what they should be. In this paper, we will

Contamination can occur when transferring DNA or the collection of DNA evidence. In the case involving Mr. Farah, he was wrongful charged of rape although he had appealed in the High Court with the basis of the scientists not having said he was undisputedly the perpetrator. The scientists said that it was a very small chance that it was not Mr. Farah which he argued was still a reasonable doubt. The judges dismissed the case within twenty minutes but it was later found that the evidence was contaminated. Other examples include R v. Rendell (1999) and R v. Carroll (2002.)Though technology is advancing, the process of collecting, processing and analyzing DNA has faults. There needs to be more training, procedures and checks put in place for the system to be effective. Faults in evidence presents to be ineffective justice as although the jury weighed up the evidence, there was inadequate access to allow him to refute the claims and lead to wrongful convictions.

Within the criminal justice system discuss the effectiveness of legal and non-legal measures in achieving justice.

In the 2013 case, R v Gittany, the accused, Simon Gittany, requested for a judge-only trial. This was due to the complexity of his murder case and the media coverage which Gittany believed would have influenced the jury’s perspectives and outcome. The complexities and intricacies of a trial that took barristers and solicitors years of expertise to understand and interpret cannot be expected to be completely understood from a group of twelve members from the public. This can be seen in a recent 2013 report from the Sydney Morning Herald, ‘Jurors Need More Direction’ where the NSW Law Reform Commission (LRC) found that the directions given to juries from judges ‘are not working, overly complex and need to be clearer’. However, their imperfections aren’t enough to have them off the trial process as juries allow the public to be involved in the judicial system. Public participation in the criminal trial process creates more confidence in the legal system. Juries are the most democratic aspect of the criminal trial process and are a crucial aspect in representing the interests and needs of the community.

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)

In America we have an Adversary System of Justice, which means that criminal trials proceed under the adversary theory of justice to arrive at the truth in a given case. One characteristic of this system is intensive cross-examination of both defense and prosecution witnesses. In a jury trial, it is for the jury, which observes these witnesses, to weigh the evidence and make the ultimate decision in every case—guilty or not guilty. However, not every case makes it to trial in fact, about 80% of defendants plead guilty allowing them to just be sentenced and not have to go through the whole process of a trial. Other cases are dropped, or dismissed if the prosecutor, or in some cases a grand jury, feels that there is insufficient evidence to carry on. Some defendants are sent to diversion programs, these individuals are often sent here because an official involved in the case believes that there is a better way to deal with a defendant than to prosecute them.

There have been many incidents where cases have needed a solid prosecution in order to convict the defendant in a murder or rape case. This is where DNA Testing comes in to help. By taking a DNA test, a person can be found guilty or not guilty. If a person claims they have been raped there can be a sperm sample taken from the suspect in order to prove that he is guilty or not. In addition, in a murder case there can be blood taken from the suspect so they can tell of his innocence. There are several ways to determine whether a person is guilty or not by this method. Many cases have begun to use this method saying that it is foolproof. People say this is the method of the future of crime

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.

Trial by Jury and Alternatives to It In order to decide whether or not trial by jury should or should not

We, as American citizens, have certain unalienable rights that are granted to us. Among those rights, the United States Constitution states that we have the right to trial by jury, which is an unconditional right which protects us from certain government actions. Nonetheless, some people choose to exercise his or her right to have a trial by judge.

“In 1984, a British geneticist named Alec Jeffreys stumbled upon one of our most important forensic tools: DNA fingerprinting. Since his “eureka moment,” the scientific technique has been used successfully to identify perpetrators of a crime, clarify paternity and exonerate people wrongly convicted” (Jones). DNA evidence, specifically simple-mixture, is the most accurate type of forensic evidence we currently have at our disposal, but even it is not infallible. Other types of forensic evidence are much less accurate, but unfortunately their use is still permitted in U.S courtrooms. Jurors may be misled by experts within the courtroom as well. These misconceptions about the accuracy of forensic science and the field in general lead to many problems in the courtroom.

As humans, we believe in myths that the police, or anyone working for the justice system, will say the truth. This is a given, since they work for the justice system. Nevertheless, the Serial podcast hosted by Sarah Koenig questions this criminal justice system people whole heartedly trust. Serial is about a 1999 case where a Muslim teenage boy, Adnan Syed, is convicted of murdering his ex-girlfriend, Hae Min Lee – 17-year-old Korean teenager. I have listened to the Serial podcast and took a significant amount of interest toward it. However, when I continued to listen to the podcast, I could clearly see that throughout Adnan’s trial and the investigation process, there were many flaws in the justice system. This has confirmed the criminal justice system to be flawed and ineffective, which is seen through the defense, investigation team, as well as the prosecution.

The Criminal Justice Systems have various objectives to achieve, one of them being reduction of crime levels. Another core objective is practicing justice. These two objectives can be achieved in various ways. Evidence has been presented by the authors that the judicial systems sometimes play unfair in solving crime cases.

In McClure, Weisburd and Wilson (2008) summary article arguing that in addition to bench science, field experimentation involving forensic methods is key to assess the utility of various methods to solve crimes. The study reflected that there is a need for more research into many aspects of forensic science, criticizing the strength of scientific evidence that’s collected at a crime scene and interpretations of most forensic methods while omitting DNA testing. McClure et al’s (2008) explains that in sexual cases and homicides, the presence of DNA evidence actually increased the likelihood of prosecution and a conviction. According to the article “…the case of convictions, the odds-ratio for the presence of DNA evidence was 33.1 for sexual offenses and 23.1 for homicides” (McClure et al., 2008). Subsequently, the research shows that there was a consistent gradual decline in the national homicide rates that began in the 1900s and continued through into the 21st century. The decline of homicides in the US has dropped by from more than 90% in the 1960s to 62% in 2003. Even though this significant drop has occurred during the introduction of the new DNA testing