Inquisitorial system usually has one judge or a small group doing all the decision making whereas in the adversarial system there are 12 people in a jury and all of the 12 jury discusses the matter before giving them their group answer made up of the majority 0votes. This is better because of broader range of opinions and thoughts. Yes, it is true that rich criminals can get better lawyers and this makes a huge
The jury is surely the best instrument for determining the primary facts of a case and so far giving the judgments. It is difficult and fallible for one person to determine whether the person is telling truth or not, that’s why the jury trial is taken into account which is basically the final verdict arriving at after many justifications through 12 lay men of the society. Lord Judge CJ has said that: “In this country, trial by jury is a hallowed principle of the administration of criminal justice. It is properly described as a right. It is so deeply entrenched in our constitution that, unless express statutory language indicates otherwise, the highest possible forensic standard of proof is required to be established before the right is removed.
This essay will consider at the various advantages and disadvantages of the Jury within the context of the legal system. It will start by highlighting the role of the jury in a trial, of whom they are comprised, and how the system works. It will then go on to analyse on the advantages and disadvantages of the system, including illustrative evidence both supporting and opposing the jury system. Following this there will be a short summary, highlighting the main points of this essay and then a conclusion. A jury can be defined as a group of people (usually 12 in number) who have been selected to consider the issues of fact in a trail in a Court of Law, in order to make a finding as to an individual’s guilt or lack thereof to a standard which is either “beyond reasonable doubt” or “on the balance of probabilities”.
Tartaro and Sedelmaier caution readers about generalizing their data findings and were openly honest about the limited controls and variables they had to work with, which in a sense, discounted their study findings as a whole. Again, this topic is very interesting and should be researched comprehensively. Judges’ perceptions of offenders’ dangerousness should not be based on stereotypes or other extralegal factors, but on measurable legal factors: prior offenses and the severity of offenses, prior convictions, and previous time served. The article “The Impact of Race on the Pretrial Decision” targeted a larger sample population which was generalizable to a larger population and therefore, held more validity. Both articles became more difficult to understand as data collected was defined with ‘Tables‘ and numbers; discussion is easier to understand than bunches of letters and numbers in graphs and
| Reasonableness v Proportionality | | | | Intro The principle of reasonableness has sparked widely differing views throughout the years and many academics believe that it should have been dead and buried long ago. Donson comments that unreasonableness has long been seen as a concept open to developments and manipulation and that its vague and circular definition makes it difficult to argue successfully in many cases but is equally a reason for it being attractive to applicants. It was evident as early as 1975 in writings by Austin how difficult it would be to overturn a decision by way of judicial review on the grounds of lack of reasonableness. He stated that “reasonableness...is only likely to be used in extreme cases where a decision is completely absurd. Such cases are so rare that the test is probably on its death bed...hopefully it will soon meet a timely end and be decently buried never to be resurrected.” Cane states in his book that “the concept of unreasonableness is a flexible one and can be adapted to different types of decisions.
All criminal cases are attended by a court reporter, but a court reporter is required in civil hearings only if a party asks for one. Q: Which system is most effective? A: There is a continuing debate between those who believe that it is less costly and more efficient to have court proceedings electronically recorded and transcribed only when a transcript is absolutely necessary, and those who believe that having a stenographic reporter present to take down the testimony is most effective. A stenographic reporter may mishear, misunderstand, or err in taking down the words. However, even an attended electronic system may crash, despite backups.
Judicial Activism: Analytic Essay Josh Walton 100888288 Caryma Sa’ad A09 135-2:25 Betina Kozmorav LAWS 1000A In contemporary society, judge’s rulings are largely based on personal philosophy and opinion. Law cannot be structured around beliefs, views or opinions rather it must perceived and viewed in regards to the tangible elements that are provided. Judicial activism is when judges substitute their own political personal opinions for the applicable law. Many see this as a flawed system due to the complications that emerge involving judicial bias. The term judicial activism has been around for six decades and has become a very popular tool for criticizing judge’s behaviour.
“Magna Charta (1215) also called The Great Charter, is considered one of the most important documents in the establishment of democracy, its influence can be seen throughout the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights”(GCU Lecture, 2010, para. 2). The Magna Charta was not considered identical to the constitution, yet it did contain some criminal laws that were incorporated into the “Bill of Rights” and “The United States Constitution.” For example: “giving individuals the right to know the burdens they were charged for, the right to have attorney representing them in the court of law, being judged by peers before imprisonment, and the last the premise of innocent until being proven as guilt” (GCU Lecture, 2010, para. 2). This document contains sixty three chapters which define the “trial by jury, due process, habeas corpus, and equality under the law” (“Magna Charta,” 2005, para.
Judicial decisions have also effectively created new crime as in Shaw v. DPP (1962) – offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals, or R v. R (1991) – rape within marriage is a crime. Also, in contract and tort law, nearly all the main rules come from cases decided by judges. Many of them were made in the last century or so but still affect today law e.g. Felthouse v. Bindley (1863) – silence can not be deemed as consent (acceptance of an offer) or the neighbourhood principles produced in Donoughue v. Stevenson (1932). So how can judge create law through the doctrine of precedent?
[2] Indeed, this seemingly plainly written text is much more than just a narrative piece of work due to its inherent influence at the sentencing stage. There exists an inherent tension between the two schools of thoughts: one view among the legal academy is that such statements are no more than some maneuver to elongate criminals’ sentences or even encourage votes for death penalty in some extreme cases by evoking unnecessary emotionalism, while some argue that they undeniably convey essential information to sentencing judges and possess other advantageous effects. A literary analysis of a victim impact statement thus becomes essential – exploring the camouflaged narrative techniques as employed to explain their role in court. In this essay, I shall discuss the narrative dimension of victim impact statements in light of Booth v Maryland, followed by an analysis of whether the court should admit such statements in the sentencing phase of cases. II.