Western Liberal Law Tradition

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.

He does this simply because he does not believe that it is just nor noble to allow emotions to overtake a situation that is designed to be dominated by logic and justice. In describing, what he believes to be the function of a jurymen he says, “The judge is not seated to give away the just things as a gratification, but to judge them. For he has not sworn to gratify whoever seems favorable to him, but to give judgment according to the laws.” (35c) He also believes that it is their duty to “Concentrate [their] attention whether what [he] says is just or not, for the excellence of a judge lies in this.” (18a) He presents his case with these ideals in mind. He states the facts and gives logical explanations for the deeds of which he is accused. He expects that the jury will adhere to their duties, as previously prescribed, and acquit him in the face of his logic and superior arguments. This does not come to pass and he is found guilty of all charges and sentenced to death. In examining the verdict, Socrates concludes that the decision could not have been based on justice and reason given the clear justice and reason in his argument and subsequent guilty conviction. He reasons that if the decision was not based on the law of justice, it must have been based on the law of emotion:

To be sure, modern laws are made to express the general will, a will that aims at the common good. This means that laws in most cases intend to protect every social member’s rights under the principle of justice and fairness. For telling examples one need to look no further than American judicial system. The access to the two courts systems, one federal court and one state court, provides citizens with the greatest potential to have their legal problems

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

In the 2013 case, R v Gittany, the accused, Simon Gittany, requested for a judge-only trial. This was due to the complexity of his murder case and the media coverage which Gittany believed would have influenced the jury’s perspectives and outcome. The complexities and intricacies of a trial that took barristers and solicitors years of expertise to understand and interpret cannot be expected to be completely understood from a group of twelve members from the public. This can be seen in a recent 2013 report from the Sydney Morning Herald, ‘Jurors Need More Direction’ where the NSW Law Reform Commission (LRC) found that the directions given to juries from judges ‘are not working, overly complex and need to be clearer’. However, their imperfections aren’t enough to have them off the trial process as juries allow the public to be involved in the judicial system. Public participation in the criminal trial process creates more confidence in the legal system. Juries are the most democratic aspect of the criminal trial process and are a crucial aspect in representing the interests and needs of the community.

From our class sessions, in order to hand down a ruling, a judge must first interpret the law before applying it to the case. Moreover, judges have other important responsibilities in the courtroom, such as admitting/denying evidence, instructing the jury, safeguarding the defendant 's rights and state 's interests in justice, upholding dignity, showing fairness, handing down sentences, discriminating/indiscriminating sentencing structures, even having to consider probation sanctions to impose on probationers. For instance, near the end of the proceeding, the judge instructed the jury about giving a verdict and the upcoming agenda for when they are to decide guilt or innocence. The judge played an active role in ensuring there is fairness on both sides of the prosecution and defense.

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)

Domitus Ulpian said, “Justice is the constant and perpetual will to allot to every man his due.” Justice is what allows a society to operate and function. It is upheld and enforced by a system of rules known simply as the law which are officially recognised and imposed on states to govern behavior. Some form of law has always existed in human history whether it be in an unwritten customary form or in a written format like a constitution (Milgate P, 2013). The law and legal system around the world has developed throughout history to the point that there are many different categories and sub categories of law. In modern day Australia, the legal system has been modelled after the English system. This is a combination of statute and common

It has also been suggested that judges could use video conferencing facilities from a different location in order to deal with a civil dispute rather than be physically present. This is not without its’ own set of challenges . It is implied that a party in a trial has the right to see a judge “struggling conscientiously with the detail of a case ” which is a “feature of the court system that cannot be discarded ”. In trying to minimise the physical aspect of the judge’s role in court seems to undermine the basic fundamental human rights mentioned in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which states that parties in a trial are entitled to a “fair and public hearing...” . This is because it seeks to reinforce the aspect of the courts moving towards a more ‘impersonal ’ and ‘nonhuman ’ approach to dealing with civil disputes.

INTRODUCTION 1. LAW Law is a set of rules which are imposed through social institutions to govern behaviour. Law has been described as “the cement of society and an essential medium of change”. (Atherton and Atherton, 2010) 2. COMMON LAW

Law can be defined as the written agreement that a society agrees upon this dictates appropriate and acceptable conduct and behaviour we display toward each other. Law is the foundation of the society it can only work if the society abides by it and work to maintain its existence, this will help solve any problems and crimes.

Since we were kids and became conscious of our surrounding, our parents and grandparents instilled in us an awareness of what is right and wrong. In other words, it is a trait of all human beings and fosters from our desire to get along with each other to live a harmonious life. Laws are a set of rules and behaviors set by governments that society illustrate on what people can or cannot do. The purpose of this paper is three-fold: it will identify and define what distinguishes law from ethics and what similarities they share. The second is an analysis of examples of where law and ethics either meet or diverge. Third is the role where law and ethics either meet or diverge.

The rule of law is a difficult concept to grasp and proves elusive to substantive definition. However, the following work considers the attempts of various social and legal theorists to define the concept and pertinent authorities are considered. Attitudes and emphasis as to the exact shape, form and content of the rule of law differ quite widely depending on the socio-political perspective and views of respective commentators (Slapper and Kelly, 2009, p16), although there are common themes that are almost universally adopted. The conclusions to this work endeavour to consolidate thinking on the rule of law in order to address the question posed in the title, which is at first sight a deceptively simple one.

There is no such thing as justice - in or out of court.        Clarence Darrow i

In every political society it is the law which contributes to its civilized character, but law is the handmaid of social justice, rendering in the interest of society that which is according to law and to which a person or persons are entitled.