Juries are an intrinsic part of Queensland’s legal system as they protect and reinforce society’s views most importantly presumption of innocence. The fairly recent Criminal Code and Another Act Amendment Act 2008 has seen the introduction of judge only trials which has, although complicating the system, considerably improved the right of the accused to a fair trial. Although, as quoted by Justice Dean, juries were “administered in criminal cases as a protection against the tyranny of arbitrary punishment...” this amendment was implemented to protect the accused’s right to presumption of innocence without eroding their constitutional right to a jury which it has successfully achieved. The idea of juries stems from people wanting to be tried …show more content…
An application is required to be made before the commencement of the trial and will be accepted if the court considers it in the interests of justice to do so. However, to maintain the constitutional rights of the accused, if the prosecution has applied for the order, the court will only make the order if the accused is consenting. Section 651A provides that an order for a trial by judge only cannot be made if the accused is accused of two or more crimes that are required to be tried together unless the order is made for all charges. Similarly, if two or more are accused, an order may not be made unless the order is made for all the accused. This process ensures a judge only trial is only applied if it is in the best interests of justice and protecting the presumption of innocence of the …show more content…
My final recommendation is that, if both the accused person and the prosecutor agree to the accused person being tried by a Judge alone, the court must make the order unless the court is satisfied that the order is not in the interests of justice which can be seen under section 118 of Western Australia’s the Criminal Procedures Act 2004. In conclusion, I believe the amendment to the jury system provides an incredibly effective delivery of justice while still maintaining the accused’s right of presumption of innocence and right to a trial by jury referred to by Justice
7th Amendment to the Constitution The 7th amendment to the constitution of the United States was formulated and then ratified as a part of the famous Bill of Rights. This specific Amendment defines a citizen’s right to trial by a jury and in the Bill of Rights, it is mentioned quite frequently. It was fundamentally designed to prevent the establishment of dictatorial courts of justice, where the judges’ decisions were subjected to the control and whims of the government. Just as the first ten amendments to the constitution of the United States, the seventh amendment also plays a prominent role in the American legal and political theory.
Once the magistrate was satisfied that the evidence was capable of satisfying the jury, the accused was committed for trial or sentence to the Supreme Court. Cases committed to a higher court would then be determined by a judge as well as a jury. However, after Mr Lopez pleaded not guilty, he elected to be tried without a jury: section 132 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 The
The Court noted that future regulation of pretrial stages with the adoption of police codes and other safeguards of fairness might render a stage not critical and vitiate the constitutional need for counsel. Regarding the case at hand, the Court held that violation of the counsel requirement did not necessitate reversal of the conviction. The conviction could be upheld if the prosecution could show by clear and convincing evidence that the in court identification of Wade as the robber was based on the witnesses ' observations of him during the crime. The Court vacated the decision of the Fifth Circuit and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
According to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, “Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal” (Legislative Services Branch, 2017, para. 11). In the significant Canadian case R. v. Kokopenace, an Aboriginal man was tried by an unfair jury as the community where the trial took place was 25 percent First Nations, however, the jury only included 4 percent of First Nations people (Pinder, 2015). This report will summarize the major facts of the case, court’s decisions, and dissenting opinions of the judges. Clifford Kokopenace was an Aboriginal man who lived on the Grassy Narrows First Nations reserve
The jury system originated in England hundreds of years ago. The colonists brought the jury system from England to the United States. In 1733, John Zenger, a printer, printed a newspaper critical for the British Government. His attorney convinced the jury to be in favor for Zenger because his criticisms were true. After this trial, it gave ordinary citizens the freedom of speech and the power to go against the king.
On the 14th of October 2011, Mr Rayney had submitted an application for a trial which only involved a judge without a jury present. This was due Mr. Rayney assuming that a strong bias had been manifested pre-trial as a result of the subjective publicity revolving around the death of his wife, Corryn(The Conversation, 2012). Therefore, the jury and any member of the public would already have preconceived views in favour of Mr Rayney being guilty of murdering his wife. The trial was successful for Mr Rayney where he was acquitted of murdering his wife. Similarly, this issue is somewhat common as it had also occurred in the case Evans v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 182, in which both appellants had made appeals after being convicted for murder.
Another reason citizens question juries is that they have bias from personal experience or the media. The defendant and the prosecution criticize the jury system because the actual jurors may not understand the situation from any point of view because they come from different lifestyles (Doc E). The American jury system is not a good idea anymore because juries are not experts in law, they have bias, and are not “a jury of peers”. Because jurors are not experts in law, they are subject to be
Like the Electoral College, several of the plans made by the Founding Fathers have lost some of their practicality. What worked in the past does not always work in the future, and this is the case for the jury system. The sole reason it was created was to ensure that each citizen was guaranteed a fair trial, which was a main concern due to Britain’s monarchy. In modern times, however, the judicial branch of the United States could easily give every citizen a fair trial with only a judge presiding over the case. It is clear that bench trials are superior to trials by jury because the citizens on juries are unqualified or biased, its benefits do not outweigh its burdens, and its claim to encourage civic duty is false.
Guilty or not guilty, all citizens deserve a thorough trial to defend their rights. Formulating coherent stories from events and circumstances almost cost a young boy his life. In Twelve Angry Men, 1957, a single juror did his duty to save the life of an 18 year old boy by allowing his mind to rationalize the cohesive information presented by the court and its witnesses. The juror’s name was Mr. Davis, he was initially the only one of 12 jurors to vote not guilty in reason that the young boy, sentenced with first degree murder, may be innocent. I am arguing that system 1 negatively affects the jurors opinion on the case and makes it difficult for Mr. Davis to convince the other jurors of reasonable doubt.
Feb. 09, 2018 Should the American jury system still exist? You 're accused of a crime you know you didn 't commit, how would you feel if when you went to court you didn 't get to have a jury to have a better chance of the verdict siding with you, and not get accused of a crime. The judge immediately decides your guilty and you 're put on probation , faced with charges you don 't have the money to pay ,or even get sent to jail. “ The jury system arose in England hundreds of years ago. If there was a crime committed in the community, the accused was brought to a jury.
Has the jury system outlived its usefulness and practicality? It is a hotly-debated topic that often divides opinion. Although there are many benefits to the jury system, like the ability for citizens to study law while engaging in real-life experiences and reducing the probability of corruption. But undoubtedly, the disadvantages of the jury system outweigh the advantages. Generally, the cons can be listed as the following: first, the lack of expertise characteristic, second, the presence of deadlocks and mistrials, and third, the waste of effort and money along with it.
In the article of Connect US “… prosecutors and defendants to have limited removal power over the formation of the jury so that it can seem fair to both sides in the case. ”(Chief, Editor) This makes it where both parties have some leeway to either stay with the chosen jury or replace someone if they feel that it will be biased for one side. Also having a trial by jury highly eliminates bias because of the twelve people, which makes it harder if a jury to make everyone vote guilty or not guilty. It’s important to know someone’s background and what condition they are in before being given an important task such as jury duty since they are contributing to either putting someone behind the bar or releasing them back to society, in the article Connect US, “…Judges and lawyers have the opportunity to question each one to see if they can be fair and impartial.”
The grand jury is an institution that has long played a vital role in criminal justice systems, specifically as it relates to the indictment and prosecution of alleged criminals. The grand jury originated in 1166, with the enactment of the Assize Clarendon, by King Henry II of Britain (McSweeney, 2014). The Assize Clarendon, mandated that a “jury of twelve good and lawful men”, be periodically convened, to investigate and inform the king’s justices; whether they had knowledge of or suspected community members of having committed a crime (Segal, Spivack, & Costilo, 1996). Previous to the enactment of the Assize Clarendon, the Catholic Church and nobility decided criminal cases by means of, “trial by ordeal or trial by battle or trial by compurgation” (Hurnard, 1941). Subsequent to the enactment of the Assize Clarendon, English law adopted an evidentiary model, in which evidence, assessment, and investigation was made by laymen, knights or ordinary freemen, under oath (Hurnard, 1941).
Twelve Angry Men is in many ways a love letter to the American legal justice system. We find here eleven men, swayed to conclusions by prejudices, past experience, and short-sightedness, challenged by one man who holds himself and his peers to a higher standard of justice, demanding that this marginalized member of society be given his due process. We see the jurors struggle between the two, seemingly conflicting, purposes of a jury, to punish the guilty and to protect the innocent. It proves, however, that the logic of the American trial-by-jury system does work.
In this paragraph, the advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury will be discussed. The main advantages are that juries introduce community values into the legal process and can influence the system (Joyce, 2013); they can achieve a sense of equity and fairness without enforcing unjust laws; in addition, juries are independent and neutral (Davies, 2015). Moreover, they guarantee participation from the public in a democratic institution (Hostettler, 2004), and represent the population thanks to the randomness with which jurors are decided (Davies, 2015). On the other hand, the most important disadvantages are that jurors have no prior contact with the courts, no training (Hostettler, 2004) and therefore they lack knowledge of law, courtroom proceedings (Joyce, 2013), and lack of ability to understand the legal directions (Thomas, 2010). Moreover, they must face evidence which is highly technical (Hostettler, 2004).