ipl-logo

Case Report: Are Juries The Fairest Of Them All

801 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Conslusion of jury system

‘Are Juries the "Fairest” of Them All?’ 1. INTRODUCTION In the journal titled “Law, Fact or Justice?” written by Professor Zuckerman, he has suggested the notion that “trust in the jury is secured by the fact that it applies standards of adjudication which are both generally familiar and widely accepted” . His reasoning was based on the fact that because juries command trust in the community, therefore, they are in the position to administer adjudication on the merits. This assumption may be justified owing to the fact that trial by jury has been practiced for hundreds of centuries in Britain. Consequently, it has customarily been accepted as the cornerstone of democracy and bedrock to fair trials in the English legal system. However, in …show more content…

After a hearing, the judge will assist the jury by providing a brief summary of the facts of the case and guidance on applicable laws. Following that, the jury will then retire to consider their verdict in private. It is important to note that in reaching a verdict, the jury is only eligible to take into account materials or evidence that was introduced in court. Under the modern criminal system, juries sit in a group of 12 and are only entitled to take part in cases heard in the Crown Court where they decide a defendant’s guilt. On a side note, under the civil system, juries may be used to determine the liability of a defendant and amount of damages to be awarded. Although juries are hardly use in civil courts, they can be used in the High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) where they sit in a group of 12, or in the County Court, in a group 8 to hear cases on defamation, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. In some instances, juries may also sit in groups of 7 to 11 in the Coroner’s Court to determine a person’s cause of

Show More
Related
891 Words | 4 Pages

The Supreme Court of Canada consented to Kokopenace’s appeal. Justice Moldaver of the Supreme Court stated that although representativeness is quite a significant attribute of the jury roll, it is rather regulated to a certain extent (Pinder, 2015). The idea of representativeness does not regard every particular type of group to be

Read More
515 Words | 3 Pages

Jurors should not know anything about a specific case and not follow public affairs and read the news (Doc F). When a person is selected to be part of a jury, they have to say an oath stating that they will not use their emotions to determine the verdict of a trial. If a juror is caught using their emotions, they will be fined for a crime called perjury. Since there are twelve people in a jury, there is a variation of opinions when the jury decides a verdict. But, a judge is more professional and knows how to only use the evidence provided and be less biased.

Read More
852 Words | 4 Pages

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.

Read More
776 Words | 4 Pages

With a jury that cares about everything but the trial, how is the defendant suppose to be given a fair trial? He isn’t. The last piece of evidence is cartoon 3, where a dog is being judged by his natural enemies, feline (Document E). These ‘jurors’ all hate the dog and no matter what the evidence is, the dog will be guilty. It applies to our system with the notion that a suspect is hated by jurors because the media accuses them of being guilty before the trial begins.

Read More
1285 Words | 6 Pages

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.

Read More
773 Words | 4 Pages

The jury may not be experienced enough and can make fatal mistakes. Not only are the jurors biased, they are inexperienced. As shown in cartoon 1, 2, and 3 (Document E), many of the jurors have no experiences with court and base their verdicts on factors other than what the lawyers are giving them. Examples such as the jurors being dogs, verdict based on appearance, and being distracted with other issues during the court trial. The juror is inexperienced and biased, while the judge is experienced with what is going around during a trial, and they have been trained to be able to see both sides of a story and decide on evidence and

Read More
842 Words | 4 Pages

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

Read More
1186 Words | 5 Pages

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.

Read More
783 Words | 4 Pages

A bench trial is a trial where the convicted person's fate is decided by the judge, a trial by jury is when 12 random people are called upon by the court and are chosen to be part of the jury to hear the trial and decide the fate of the person being accused in the trial. Most times the decision has to be unanimous or if the jury cannot decide they will call a hung jury and a new set of 12 people will be brung in to decide the trial. The person that is on trial has the right to decide if they want a trial by jury or a bench trial. “The role of jury service in promoting self-governance and civic participation is hardly an accident. The framers of the united states constitution viewed jury service as a critically important feature of self-governance and guaranteed the right to serve on juries in the seventh amendment.”

Read More
705 Words | 3 Pages

A flawed jury is what makes for an unfair trial. Juries are a crucial piece of the puzzle which helps create the system we have today, one where it needs to be represented in the right way that makes the justice system an improved one. The judicial system is one where the jury needs to accurately represent the community that the accused resides in, achieving this can impact the community first hand, make it easier to protect the defendant from unfair sentencing, and promote public confidence in the justice system which is what lots of people distrust and lack in. The citizens in a community are the ones that get impacted from the actions of accused in the first hand which is why they need to be accurately shown in the jury.

Read More
907 Words | 4 Pages

Unit 23 D1 – Law The Advantages and Disadvantages of using Lay Magistrates and Juries in the English Courts Lay Magistrates and Juries are found in the Crown and Magistrates Court throughout England and Wales. A Jury is made up of random members of the general public, and is always made up of 12 people. These 12 people sit and listen to the facts and evidence given to them by the barristers.

Read More
511 Words | 3 Pages

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).

Read More
1912 Words | 8 Pages

The concept of the jury system was founded by the Norman following the Conquest. However, its early functions were not associated with the administration of justice. In England, early jurors were individuals compelled to take an oath, acting as witnesses providing sources of information for administrative purposes; to be used in what Devlin phrased an “inquest” as the King saw that there could be “no better way of getting at the facts” .

Read More
225 Words | 1 Pages

It is generally the responsibility of the judge to keep the jury informed about what is the relevant law while It is the role of the jury to assess the evidence and determine the truth behind the case. The jury then has to reach a verdict, after applying the relevant law to the facts of the case. In a criminal case, while the jury may give a verdict of guilt, it is the judge who decides upon appropriate sentences. On the other hand, in civil cases the jury decides on the amount of monetary compensation awarded in damages. The jury is only permitted to appraise evidence that has been brought to light in court itself; it is not authorised to consider evidence in the jury room that, prior, has not been introduced to court.

Read More
1472 Words | 6 Pages

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).

Read More

More about Case Report: Are Juries The Fairest Of Them All

Related Topics

Open Document