Pros And Cons Of 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? The responsibility of the jury in criminal and civil cases is to “determine questions of fact” and apply

The effectiveness of the criminal trial process as a means of achieving justice 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.

To begin I will be discussing the pros and cons between a jury trial and bench trial. First of all a bench trial is where a jury is not present and the judge is the only ruler of all the matters of the law. The pros of having a bench trial is that it is a quicker process for matters that need to be resolved in a more timely matter. Bench trials also, tend to be less formal than jury trials. Plus since there is not a jury the prosecutor does not need to spend time going through the jury selection and instruction process. All in all the bench trial is a speeder option for the people. On the other hand there is some downfall to having a bench trial, which is that again there is only a judge no jury, so it comes down to only one person to be the

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. A jury is a group of 12 people aged between 18 and 70 who have been randomly

1. When being a prosecutor one must be un-biased despite if they already made up their mind that the accused is guilty. Therefore, we have a saying that all courts and law enforcements should abide by, which is “everyone is innocent until proven guilty.” The prosecutor’s job is to collect evidence that he or she may provide to the court to prove if the defendant is innocent or guilty.

In America’s justice system, a grand jury is a group of citizens called to decide whether probable cause exists to believe that a suspect committed the crime with which she or he has been charged (Gaines G-4). In the Central District of California, prospective jurors who report and are not excused or postponed, the Jury Clerk will use a computer program to randomly select 23 members and ten alternates for each grand jury. A grand jury designated “investigatory” meet for a 12-month term, while a grand jury designated “accusatory” meets for a 6-month term. A grand jury has 23 members and meets once a week, always on the same weekday. Grand juries do not meet on weekends or Mondays. The average workday is 5 hours. Absences for medical appointments, vacations, graduations, etc. may be accommodated, but 16 members must be present for the grand jury to conduct business. The grand jury serves the United States District Court, Central District of California. In contrast, a trial jury is asked to reach a verdict based on the evidence presented during a civil or criminal trial; a grand jury meets in secret to consider whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a formal criminal charge against someone. That formal criminal charge is called an “indictment” (Central).

In chapter 4, the textbook discusses the Criminal justice system and how the system works. The criminal justice system is a system setup to punish those accused of criminal offenses. Crimes such as murder, rape, robbery or crimes that are considered felonies. Many people are found guilty of their crimes and others are found innocent. People find this a good system to properly punish those who have committed offenses. I disagree that the system is a good system that helps people. The reason for me disagreeing is that the system is not perfect. There have been cases where the jury has come to a verdict that was wrong. Cases where the jury wrongly incarcerated somebody or cases where the jury acquitted somebody when they were guilty. A system

I think the grand jury is better because unlike preliminary hearings, the grand jury see and hear only what is put before them by the prosecutors. Adversary proceeding does not change the grand jury’s decision about a case. Also, grand juries most of the time, return indictments as requested by prosecutors, which makes grand juries notorious for “being rubberstamps for the prosecutor for virtually all routine matters” (Berman, S. J).

The trial of Columbus versus the state took place is took place and was a grueling debate of whether or not Columbus was to be sentenced for the crimes that were committed or not to be. As the prosecution continued to charge Columbus the defence continually discredited there arguement because of how they evidently had no proof that Columbus himself was responsible for the crimes committed. At first this made it very interesting as the trail was not just a push over. However very quickly it became boring a repetitive for the jury to watch. Then with the constant yelling of objection it became painstaking long to watch as it seemed like there wasn't even a trail going on. In addition to that the fifteen minute long answer by one of the witnesses was extremely drawn out seeing as no new information was presented except for at the start because of how the witness refused to give a yes or no answer and kept repeating her statement. Although the rest of the trail was pretty well done. Both side of the trail were very well prepared making for the most part an eventful fun to watch. The constant screaming between mostly Mason and James was to say the least very funny and especially with the constant belittlement of James. The reason I voted the way I did was because of how, like I stated before, the evidence brought against Columbus was all

In my court case, The ransom of Red Chief. The Defense team said that Red Chief threaten kids. And he tied up Bill and Sam. The Production team, Tae hayes said that they gave him candy. They also said that Little Red Chief put bruises on Bill and Sam. The Production team said that he may have a disorder. Red Chief said that he didn't have have a sling shot. Red chief said he has bruises on him from sam and bill. The defense team said that the neighbors complained that Red chief has a slingshot and hit Bill and sam with it. Red chief said he used a slingshot to protect himself. Sam said that red chief hit him with sticks. The production team said that sam and Bill is guilty.

he right to a speedy trial is the first of the seven rights. Having a speedy trial is essential while you are being under investigation for the simple fact that one would not want to spend an infinite amount of time behind bars without being heard. For example if one

Yes there’s danger prosecutors might illegitimate seek continuances by using speedy trial, by prosecuting the interest of the defense and society this is viewed as irrespective on weather the defendants interest are in jeopardy. In this case Barker could not be convicted unless his partner manning testified against him. By continuing with the trial an acquittal can only be beneficial to Barker. The right of speedy trial is more vague concept than other procedure rights. The right of speedy trials is relative, not absolute the test would be balancing the test would be balancing behaviors of the prosecutors and the defendants are weighted calling the delay extraordinary. The delay is associated with not many cases the court must procced.th defendant

The American jury system is a tradition that comes from England before explorers came over to what is now America. A jury has been used to “fairly” judge a person being put on trial. Most criminal and civil cases use a jury. The jury system is not a good idea since it has people who do not anything about law judging someone based on what a lawyer says that makes no sense to someone who has never heard those terms before. The jury system is putting six to twelve people in charge of the defendant’s life.

When the outcome of the hypothesis is skewed then the results can be unfavorable. If a jury convicts an innocent person, then they must also take into consideration the probability of the person actually committing the crime. By taking into consideration the significance level of the evidence, one would have to accept or reject the hypothesis based on evidence. There may be times when a lawyer might be biased toward the criminal and sway the evidence. In this case, the jury, which is made up of random people, would have to decide if there is enough to convict the criminal with absolute certainty. While a jury may not be actually performing the hypothesis testing, in theory, which is what they are doing when deciding if someone is guilty

Prosecutors have several alternatives to criminal trial. They may accept a corporation’s offer to plead guilty. They may defer prosecution of the corporation under a deferred prosecution agreement. They may accept a corporation’s offer to sign a non-prosecution agreement, frequently with the intent to prosecute corporate officials or employees. They