The Canadian Charters Of Rights And Freedoms

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 Canadian Charter of Rights has been entrenched in the Constitution Act of 1982 since 1982 and affected the lives of countless Canadians ever since it was passed, with most if not all of the effects being positive. This can be proven by the fact that the act that the act has only faced two amendments in the 35 years it has been in effect. Furthermore, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has five components; Fundamental Freedoms, Democratic Rights, Mobility Rights, Legal Rights, and Equality Rights. All of these were designed to make sure that Canadians face no discrimination, and are not denied any basic rights. This can be seen by seeing how much the quality of life for Canadians has increased over the time the Charter has been embedded in the Constitution, by how much the Charter actually does protect the rights of Canadians.

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 As a result of changes in society since, the system must be seen as potentially outdated.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

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth II April 17, 1982. Often referred to as the Charter, it affirms the rights and freedoms of Canadians in the Constitution of Canada. The Charter encompasses fundamental freedoms, democratic rights, mobility rights, legal rights, language rights and equality rights. The primary function of the Charter is to act as a regulatory check between Federal, Provincial and Territorial governments and the Canadian people. Being a successor of the Canadian Bill of Rights that was a federal statute, amendable by Parliament, the Charter is a more detailed and explicit constitutional document that has empowered the judiciary to render regulations and statutes at both the

Three decades ago, honorable Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was establishing the renowned Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since the three decades of being established, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has protected the individual rights and freedoms of thousands of Canadians. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has become a part of the national identity and has become a big patriotic symbol for the country. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the document the truly separates Canada from all the other powerful nations and is really something that Canadian take a pride in. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms brings up many questions, but the biggest and most common question is How effectively does Canada’s Charter of Rights and

F.L. Morton examines the political impact of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by comparing pre-Charter practices to post-Charter developments in five different areas: judicial behaviour, public policy, interest group behaviour, federalism, and executive behaviour. Morton presents the Charter through its continuity and change, beginning with the move away from Britain’s “unwritten constitution” and distinguishing the doctrine as constitutional supremacy that still depends on public opinion. He argues that due to the Charter’s constitutionality, Canadian courts are able to have a more active and influential role in interpreting and enforcing the listed rights which is a negative development in Canadian democracy.

The sixth amendment to the U.S constitution guarantees a defendant in a criminal prosecution the right to a speedy, public, and impartial trial by jury. Once it has determined that the trial will be by jury, the next step in the criminal proceeding is the selection of the jurors. During this process possible jurors receive a summons in the mall ordering them to appear in court at a specified time and date the people who are summoned comprise the venire (the prospective jurors for cases). Voir dire Latin term meaning to speak the truth, this is an examination conducted by the courts or by the attorneys of a potential juror or witness to determine if they would be proficient or qualified for services. Jurors’ questionnaires reveals information disqualifying them from jury service is only the first step in the jury selection process. Typical questions relate to whether prospective jurors know the defendant, the attorneys, or any of the witnesses, whether they have read or heard about the case in the media, and whether they have racial, nationality, or gender biases. Effective voir dire is getting the prospective jurors to tell the court or attorneys what they need to know( Ferdico, J 2005).

Canada today faces a major challenge when it comes to access to justice. The civil, criminal and family justice system has become very complicated, slow and extremely expensive for majority of Canadians. These issues are particularly glaring to low income earners, people with disabilities and other minorities. Canadian justice system have become incapable of providing solutions that can addressing problems brought to it. With the creation of the Canadian charter of right and freedom, access to justice became more of an equality issue. It moved from simply being the capacity to litigate, to the quality of outcome or outcome focused. While there have been efforts to reform the system, our courts continues to lack institutional structures that can address change and create a more equitable judicial system both in capacity and outcome.

Jury nullification should continue to be recognized as a part of the Canadian justice system. The power of the juries should stay the same crucially because in some cases the defendant may actually have a reason to not be guilty even though they may be guilty for the crime that they have committed. Authors, Neil Brooks and Anthony Doob discuss about juries and the strengths and weaknesses about them and jury nullification. Chief Justice Fraser of the Alberta Court of Appeal discusses about Krieger 's Appeal and the strengths of jury nullification and how the jury following their conscience is sometimes better than following the “rule of law”. Paul Butler suggests that the law should expand jury nullification by allowing jurors who are the same race as the defendant who is guilty be free which I believe should not be added in the criminal justice system because of the many negative outcomes it may cause in society. Jury nullification is when a jury that takes part in a case believes that the defendant is not guilty even though he/she is guilty for the crime that they have caused by using their conscience instead of considering the facts that they have been presented by the law and that follow the rule of law. Jury nullification should continued to be recognized and the power of juries should be limited because of many reasons. Although jury nullification may be a positive factor to a defendant and to society as well, sometimes it won 't be if the power of juries stays the

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, implemented in 1982 outlines the rights and freedoms that Canadians have as citizens of this country. In this paper I will ask whether we need such a charter, whether we can trust the interpretation of the Charter by the Supreme Court and how the Charter balances power in a democratic way. I will then contemplate the foundational place morality holds in the lawmaking process. In all of this I argue that to make a good law one must hold to a moral standard and one must act in the understanding that belief, and not objectivity, plays the main role in rational thought.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms was established in 1982 and is the biggest turning point of Canadian history regarding human rights. Before the Charter, rights and freedoms were protected in Canada by a variety of laws, including the 1960 Bill of Rights. Although important, none of these laws were part of the Constitution, therefore lacking the supremacy and permanence of the Charter. This Charter is constitution that protected people from being neglected or mistreated by the government, a problem that had been occurring for many years prior. For example, events such as the Regina Riot, where men fought desperately for their unjust situations but were violently forced to stop. Or, the treatment during the great depression in which the government

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)

After the storm clouds of apartheid lifted to reveal the Rainbow Nation of South Africa in 1994, the first democratically elected government was tasked with drawing up a new constitution that would properly enshrine the human rights that had so long been denied the majority of citizens. One source drawn upon in developing the new constitution was the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, itself then little more than a decade old. It is not necessary to be a constitutional scholar to detect many similarities between the two; indeed, Canada’s pride in this connection is such that it is highlighted on the Government of Canada 's webpage on bilateral relations with South Africa, which boasts “South Africa 's 1996 Constitution and Bill of Rights draw heavily on Canada 's Charter of Rights and Freedoms”.

Frank, M. (2011). Challenging Peremptories: Suggested Reforms to the Jury Selection Process Using Minnesota as a Case Study. In review.law.umm.edu. Retrieved November 29, 2014, from http://review.law.umn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Frank_MLR.pdf

This essay will be looking at the advantages and disadvantages of the jury trial. Jury trial is a legal proceeding where a jury makes a decision, which then direct the actions of a judge. The members of a jury are a group of independent citizens. They have no interest in the case before them, nor is their judgment coloured by regular experience of the business of the court. They are “twelve individuals, often with no prior contact with the courts, who are chosen at random to listen to evidence and decide upon matters affecting the reputation and liberty of those charged with criminal offences.” The jury has always been drawn from sections of society but has been made democratic only in the last half century. And now almost all citizen of the United Kingdom are eligible to serve on a jury. But the percentage of criminal cases actually tried by jury is surprisingly low. Nowadays “the magistrates’ courts deal with at least 95 per cent of criminal cases. In practice juries determine the outcome of less than 1 per cent of the total of the criminal cases.” But still the idea of trial by jury has always been seen as a “cornerstone of the English legal system” , and it remains the standard mode of trial for dealing with the most serious types of criminal case. But even though it is established and been in practice for years, people seem to believe that there are disadvantages to jury trails. Nonetheless, the jury system is becoming increasingly controversial. Critics claim that