The Judge Decision Was Attacked By Public

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.

In “The Adversary Judge” Frankel explains how realities of the trial create a “role conflict” between the ideally constructed impartial judge and the realistic adversary judge (Frankel, 1976). Throughout their day people play many roles, these roles are based on the expectations of the people around them and the personality of the person (Frankel, 1976). In particular, judges are expected to play the role of neutrality, intelligence, and patience. Their role is thought to be similar of an “umpire” (Frankel, 1976). It is necessary for them to be objective in order for a just and fair trial to take place. Yet, this ideal role does not occur under the pressure of realities. One reality that pushes away the idea of an “umpire” judge is the heated emotions that occur throughout the trial process. Frankel states” the courtroom explodes as people spring up at several tables shouting objections, usually loudly because they are in some haste and heat to cut off forbidden answers” (Frankel, 1976, p. 472). The attorney’s main goals throughout the trail is to ensure a win for their client leading to competitiveness between both parties. Attorneys do not want to hear they are wrong and always need to be one step ahead of their competitors. This causes the commotion and tense emotions that is usually seen in courts.

The criminal courts are responsible for determining the guilt or innocence of the person that is accused (Griffiths, 2015, p.147). As well as the courts are supposed to conclude the appropriate sentence while protecting their rights of the accused. The outcome that comes from the criminal courts is that the judgement is made to be fair, impartial and no political intrusion. Furthermore, the main focus of the courts is the find the fundamental problems, the interagency and interdisciplinary collaboration and the accountability to the community. (Griffiths, 2015, p.147). The court is supposing to keep the fairness and equality through the society.

he heard of the unfit conditions in which Sandy, a mother of two, unjustly accused of murder,

Racial disparity in the sentencing process of the criminal justice system also exists because of racial jurors. To eliminate the suspensions of racial disparity of racial jurors the jury will select at least one African-American to serve for the jury. A percentage of African-Americans oppose capital punishment (Tabak, 1999, p. 6). Prosecutors commonly discriminate against African-Americans during challenges of discretions and blatantly abuse the powers of prosecutors. Juries predominantly use more Whites in every trial is inappropriate on the levels of the criminal justice system. Americans have rights to a trial by jury of peers and has the right not to exclude minorities in the selection of a jury. Excluding minorities in a jury of an individual’s peers is a violation of an objective and fair trial for a defendant.

When thinking of a jury, there is a belief that everyone is fair when it comes to making the decision of whether the person being accused of the crime is guilty or not guilty because of the person’s race. What if this belief is not necessarily correct? There have been many instances in whether race has been a factor when the jury makes a decision. According to Baskin, Goldstein, and Sommers (2014), there has been enough evidence to show that racial biases influences the decisions of a jury. In this paper, the articles will show how jury decision-making is influenced by the offender’s race.

The Defence and Prosecution present arguments before impartial judges who decide on a verdict based on the strongest case in law. A jury may be summoned under the Juries Act 1927 (SA), and analyse the facts presented by both attorneys to determine a verdict by either a unanimous or a majority votes of the panel. The jury system allows the judicial arm to reflect the values of the broader community. An impartial and compassionate judiciary can address the needs of minorities by looking after disadvantaged in the community through legal aid (which provides advice to those who cannot afford it) or Nunga Courts (which enable Indigenous Australians to be tried according to culturally sensitive

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

Bogira effectively shows how a lack of ethics in the criminal justice system leads to an anti-defendant bias and an immense miscarriage of justice. The books tells the stories of several defendants- from bond hearings to sentencing- that have been in the courtroom of local Judge Daniel Locallo. Locallo is a great indicator of the contradictions that take place in Courtroom 302. Locallo is a strong advocate of free choice when it comes to defendants taking the stance that poverty, abuse, etc. are no excuse for committing a crime. However, he defends is Uncle Victor stating, “He didn’t freely choose to take the low road, there were circumstances that compelled his illicit career” (Bogira, 155). Locallo is not abiding by the ethics of the court system to ensure that justice is carried out fairly. Another example of how ethics were ignored in Courtroom 302 was the fact that there were several coerced confessions from defendants. “If a defendant happened to have sustained observable injuries, police explained them away in court with one of their stock excuses: he fell down stairs while being arrested; his cellmates beat him up; he rolled off the bench in the lockup; he banged his head on the cell door as he

In the Canadian Charters of Rights and Freedoms (1982) under section 11, it is stated that a person that has been charged with a criminal offence, has the right to a trial by jury. For many years jury trials have been under constant criticism in regards to the jury’s inability to adequately perform the responsibilities entrusted to them. Many studies have been performed looking into the jury selection process, jury bias, pre-trial publicity exposure and attitudes/personality of a juror, in order to increase the jury’s abilities to perform their responsibilities to present a fair trial. In the case People v. Weatherton (2014), the inappropriate behaviour of a jury member lead to a legal dispute regarding the final verdict. This behaviour lead to a lengthy investigation with the final decision, made by the Supreme Court of California, to reverse the guilty verdict. As a member of the jury, it is important to understand the responsibilities one must uphold while deciding whether a person is guilty or not guilty.

Throughout one’s life many are prone to being in one of America’s many courtrooms at least once in their life. Whether it is for a parking ticket, a petty larceny charge, or simply jury duty most citizens have been in a courtroom once or twice. However, it is rare that one knows the many steps and processes that take place when a crime has been convicted. There is an excess number of elements that are introduced and just to name a few it all starts with the occurrence of the crime, then follows the arrest, proceeded by an arraignment, bail hearing and any more steps before finally reaching the final verdict that lands one with guilt or innocence (Neubrauer, Fadella 2013). Based on the laws in place by the United States and the Constitution one must be able to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is doubt at all in the jurors minds, they cannot convict the individual of being guilty and lately this has created a lot of controversy in the United States with many cases being tried. For example, the Casey Anthony case that took place in Florida was one of the most recent states where Common Law and the Constitution were unable to be reconcilable to prove one’s guilt.

The heart of the American Judicial System is the determination of the innocence or guilt of the accused. At the beginning of the play, the jurors all feel that the man is guilty for murdering his father and they all wanted to convict him without carrying out a detailed discussion. The persistence of juror eight, however, plays a significant role in ensuring that the correct and fair verdict is delivered. The judicial system maintains that the defendant does not have an obligation to prove his innocence. The fact is not clear to everyone as Juror 8 reminds Juror 2 about it. The fact is a key element of the judicial system and assists in the process of coming up with a verdict. The defendant is usually innocent until proven guilty. Another element of the judicial system that comes out in the play is for a verdict to stand it must be unanimous. Unanimity ensures that the

It is the court’s responsibility to ensure that there is fair number of juries that equally represent the people on trial. The courts should ensure that there is an equal number of people representing the community which we live in. There should be no systemically method of excluding the people of our country from protecting the rights of all people on trial

defendants are ruled not guilty by the court of law but outrage from the public wants to have a

Distinction of roles between judges and juries is a further fundamental difference between the adversarial and inquisitorial systems. In an adversarial system, there is a division of work between a judge and jury. The role of the judge is to adjudicate the issue of law and to ensure that the trial proceeds comply with the procedural and substantial laws, while the role of the jury is to adjudicate the issue of facts as served by the opposing parties based on the law given by judges. Generally, a judge will not interfere in jury’s decision making, but this approach varies subject to matters being decided in the criminal or civil cases. In civil cases, a judge has a power to set aside a decision taken by jury if such decision was not made in accordance with the applicable law. However, in criminal cases a judge does not