Pros And Cons Of Trial By Jury

A jury is a person who is un-qualified and not paid who is selected at random to participate in the court hearing. To be

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.

I do not believe that the way the jury is selected and the way it operates is the correct way to do it. I believe this due to the fact that not much is known about the people who are selected and that they have no experience in Law. This means that they might not understand the case and they could even be a bit biased.

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.”

Juries made up of everyday novices are the most relied upon people in the district and supreme courts when it comes to a criminal trial. Ultimately, 12 people will decide the fate of a defendant and either see them walk free or be incarcerated. What happens if they get it wrong? Although a wrongful convictions are unlikely in Australia they are usually down to police corruption, misreported evidence or a jury’s misinterpretation of the case. Untrained, average citizens are making massive decisions with barely any idea if they have followed the law or not. Personal feelings or experiences can affect the interpretation of the evidence. Also with a state like South Australia with smaller jury regions, the likely hood of know someone connected

Under the 6th amendment, defendants have the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury during criminal prosecutions. Beginning in the mid-19th century, a jury was given the full responsibility to decide on the facts of the case (Sparf and Hansen v. United States), leaving the jury with the authority of determining whether a defendant is guilty or innocent of the charges placed upon him/her and the judge with the authority of determining the law (Lippman, p.279). This juries the jurisdiction of ultimate adjudication without court interference when deliberating. Jury nullification derives from this right protected by the 6th amendment. Defined, it is the voluntary decision and act of a jury to knowingly reject the evidence of a

The potential benefit of a trial by jury is the opportunity for multiple perspectives and viewpoints t be used to compile a conclusion. Through the jurors, there is a higher chance of understanding of the case as a whole, rather than the judge viewing it as another job that needs to be done. Also, it is more probable that the jurors are more easily persuaded over the judge who has participated in numerous cases prior.

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 .

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.

The Selection and Role of a Jury in a Criminal Trial This assignment focuses on how a jury is selected and its role in a

The jury system has been in existence for nearly 800 years, thus is a crucial part of the English Legal System. It was introduced when William the Conqueror brought to England a structure of having witnesses who knew about a matter in question to tell the courts of law what they knew from Normandy. The word “juror” actually comes from the French word of “jurer” which means to swear. Hence, why before a witness comes to stand in court, they must swear on an oath. From there, the jury system has spread from the British Isles, to most countries, including the United States, those in Africa and Asia.

The Process of Choosing Jurors and Their Role The right to trial by jury can be traced back to Magna Carta (The Great Charter of Liberties, 1215) and the independence of the jury from the judge was established in Bushell's Case (1670). In criminal cases, the jury make the decision whether the defendant is guilty or not guilt. However, this is approximately only 3% of all crimes, and these are heard in the Crown Court.

Jury trials are held in District or Supreme Courts. These trials are used to ensure that people that are not influenced by the government and power can have their say in the verdict of a defendant. The jury is a selection of people that are chosen to attend a case and listen to evidence to make determinations on questions of fact. The judge then takes the jury’s decision into account when deciding the defendant’s verdict.

The American Jury System has its perks, and it has its downfalls. The Jury System we use here in America serves a good purpose in helping a case reach a consensus, however has a few “kinks” that need to be worked out. The Jury system in itself does a good job as a way for witnesses of a trial to be the one who decides the outcome of the case, but the few minor kinks in the Jury system such as the way to kind of slip away from a punishment by making a plea deal, or the jury making decisions that are too hasty. Either way, the Jury system serves its purpose, and serves it well here in the United States.