Jury Service In Australia Essay

When people say they “want justice”, what do they want? How can we achieve justice as a community?

The Americans with Disabilities Act has come a long way with helping to protect and obtaining justice for the disable opening the door for jobs and creating more adequate access to public spaces to an estimated 43 million disabled people however, corrective disabilities are more of a challenge. People whose disabilities that can be remedied with eyeglasses, medications, etc. are not covered by the ADA (Post, 1999). Justice Sandra Day O’Conner supports this action and wrote three provisions that led to the conclusion that remediable conditions are not a disability (Post, 1999).

The concept of a special disability arose for consideration throughout the case of Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio. The party to the case were two elderly migrants who were unfamiliar with written english (footnote from case study). The migrants were the parents of Vincenzo Amadio (Vincenzo) who held a high corporate position within V. Amadio Builders Pty. Ltd. (The company). Vincenzo asked his parents to provide a security starting that the mortgage would be limited to $50,000 over a duration of sixth months which however to his best knowledge was not so limited. The principle of special disadvantage that applied to the respondents led to their

Serving on a jury is a civic duty and an American tradition. However, some people view jury duty as a chore or as an event that negatively interrupts their lives. Some independent studies have shown that even jury duty has a devastating effect on married life. Due to this and other extraneous situations, there are only a few people who actually want to serve on a jury. This may lead to efforts by potential jurors to, in some way get out of their duty in a jury. What we know of as the current jury duty system should be changed so citizens are not forced to serve in this capacity and can still be regarded as a responsible civilian. As per the status quo, a trial jury is a constitutional right, a jury of ones peers or equals. However,

Inside a room where life or death decisions are made, twelve men sit with wandering thoughts. The made up minds of some jurors are to send a boy to his death without a second thought, but one other juror may change that. Inside of the play Twelve Angry Men written by Reginald Rose, Juror 8 has the persuasive evidence to change the minds of his fellow Jurors and save a boy from his execution. The other Juror’s seem like they won’t budge with their mind set on the decision of guilty, but after Juror 8 proves his thoughts on the decision of innocent, he may just be able to save a young life.

For this essay I asked my Grandma Diane questions about jury duty. She has never served on a jury but she has been summonsed to questioning to possibly be on one. When she got the summons letter she wasn’t excited, “ I didn’t want to do it, because I didn’t feel that I [had] the right to judge anyone else,” and didn’t really want to go. She got asked questions like, “Could you be impartial? Could you be fair? If “this” happened would you say that the person is guilty? Are you related to the person/persons involved? Have you heard anything about the case?,” the attorneys asked these questions because they wanted to make sure they had a jury that would make an unbiased decision in the court case. My grandma said that, “It made [her] respect what

At the dawn of the Disability Rights Movement in 1980, Canadian legislators were willing and prepared to ignore the rights of Canadians with disabilities. However, throughout the decade, Canadian citizens with disabilities and their supporters fought back and proved to the world that the voices of the disenfranchised could make a difference (Peters, 2004). Five briefs submitted to the Special Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the Senate in 1980 and 1981 regarding disability rights, reflected and supported the efforts of the Disability Rights Movement and significantly contributed to its evolution.

Juries in NSW The jury system plays a very important part in the running of the courts. The jury system is needed in both criminal and civil cases. There are advantages of the jury system as well as disadvantages.

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.

As stated by the founding fathers of America “All men are created equal.” Black, white, brown, short, tall, smart, and dumb, all are created equally. Therefore every person deserves fair judgement. Unfortunately, it is a profound fact that not everyone is born normal and capable of task typical for a common person, who is free from disability. In my opinion, the quote “All men are created equal” serves to promote a friendly environment that helps encourage equality among people and aids to recognize the similarities rather than the differences that separates men. Even so, with this hope, the disabled community still struggles for equality. According to Legal Rights by the National Association of the Deaf (NAD), “Almost 10 percent of all

It is recognised that Australia’s System of decision making in the court is in need of reform, if the

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 .

I just read about the interview by Haben Girma and I agree with the way she thinks and believes in things. She believes that people with disabilities can do just as much as a person that Isn’t impaired. She puts her ideas into a better perspective by asking the audience what they think about when they hear the word lawyer. After that, she continued to ask if they saw someone nice, a female, someone in a wheelchair, or someone deaf and signing things. I believe that anyone can do anything they set their minds to.

verdict in a legal case on the basis of evidence submitted to them in court.