Jury System in India

The jury system of a trial is an essential element of the democratic process. It attempts to secure fairness in the justice system. Traditionally, the jury system has been viewed as a cornerstone of common law procedure. However, the use of the system of trial by jury is on the decline. Today, its use differs, depending on whether (a) it is a civil or criminal matter, and (b) in criminal matters, whether it is a summary or an indictable offence.

The current jury system is based on an almost millennium-old principle found in the Magna Carta (1215). As a result of changes in society since, the system must be seen as potentially outdated. In other words, it may not satisfy the needs of modern society, judged by what the major stakeholders of the criminal justice system expect. Indeed, there are substantial flaws in current jury systems in terms of effectiveness. The two major concerns with jury systems are their representativeness and their levels of competence. The representativeness of juries is essential as their reason for existing is to represent the views of society. Having twelve jurors could be understood to ensure representativeness and eliminate room for bias. However, this does not remove the possibility of juries being biased towards parties. Even if the potential jurors contacted are representative in terms of gender, ethnicity, age and socioeconomic status and though jury duty is a compulsory engagement, 90% of Queenslanders opt out of it. This makes it very likely that juries will not be representative. One example is ethnic diversity. There is likely to be less ethnic diversity in courts because ethnic minorities might not have sufficient language ability or access to interpreters to be jurors. Another example is age. It is likely that retired people

In the United States, we let the people decide – not who the president will be, though. We let everyday people decide whether or not someone is guilty of a crime. The jury system has been around for ages (dating back hundreds of years in England) and probably will be for a long time. But is the system still working? Is it worth it? Should we continue to use juries to decide cases? The jury system shouldn’t remain an option because jurors tend to be incompetent, it’s not really worth the effort, and jurors aren’t professionally educated to decide on these cases.

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.

In this paper I will provide an analysis of a jury trial; my analysis will focus on the right of the defendant. I will articulate how a defendant 's rights at trial can be assured when it comes to The defendant’s right to a speedy trial, the defendant’s right to an impartial judge and the defendant’s right to an impartial jury.

On one hand many critics argue that the American jury system is no longer a good idea. On the other hand, some may disagree and say the American jury system is still a good idea. According to this view, one can readily agree that the American jury system gives the people a say in what is relevant to today. “The role of jury service in promoting self-governance and civic participation...the United States Constitution viewed jury service as a critically important feature of self-governance and enshrined [guaranteed] the right to serve on juries in the Seventh Amendment” (Document C). While the essence of John Weiser is that the jury system promotes civic participation, such a stance is invalid because their judgement can be clouded. Therefore, even though the American jury system does have its benefits, the jurors choice whether the convicted should be punished can be

Trial by jury can be traced back to the 12th Century and has been an integral part of the criminal justice system since Henry II favoured it over trial by ordeal (Davies, Croall and Tyrer 2010, p.311). Although they are used in both crown court trials and civil cases, the introduction of the Administration of Justice Act 1933 has reduced the use of juries in civil cases significantly (Joyce 2013, p.208). However, they are only used in about one third of cases in the Crown Court (Huxley-Binns and Martin, p.220). Since the 19th Century, the statutory provisions for jury service have been amended and revised considerably resulting in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Throughout this essay I will be firstly discussing who is eligible to sit on a

The jury system has been used in the criminal trial since the Constitution stated “the trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury.”

Jury nullification has since quite a while ago entranced courts, scholastics, and society when all is said in done. The force, or possibly right, of a jury to either convict or absolve a criminal litigant, in spite of the jury 's conviction that the law and proof request an opposite result, has mixed debate since its beginning, and keeps on polarizing. As it as of now stands, nullification possesses a position in the sundown, authoritatively denounced by the United States Supreme Court, yet permitted even urged to get by different, enduring assurances of choice jury making. Resounding the conclusions of courts around the nation, juries without a doubt have no privilege to invalidate, however, they likewise most likely have the ability to do as such, as nobody, not even the judge, is permitted to do much to control a rebel jury in a criminal trial. What 's more, finds, that while in many occasions nullification is

Juries allow and force the public to have a personal knowledge of court proceedings, protect against the bias of a single person, and provide the public with certainty that there is not corruption in our judicial system. No human system of justice is perfect, but I believe that what Benjamin Franklin said regarding the Constitution also applies to our jury system, “It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does” (Benjamin Franklin to the Federal Convention).

In the course preserving the law and order, the effectiveness of the system designed to administer justice cannot be over emphasized. Faith in the adjudicatory system by the populace is often underscored by the satisfaction the populace derives from it in terms of its administration of justice. Hence it is pertinent to analyze the approach certain countries are employ in their respective adjudicatory process.

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 .

You have been charged with an either way offence this means that you will get the choice as to whether you trial your case at the Magistrates or Crown Court. In this report I will evaluate the effectiveness of lay people presenting their advantages and disadvantages. I will also evaluate the jury system. As I have explained either way offences can either be very serious or very minor, which is why they are tried at the Crown Court or Magistrates’.

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.

The Jury Selection Procedure in the English Legal System The theory behind modern day trial by jury can be traced back some