The criminal trial process has been a reasonably effective means of achieving justice through the creation of measures to meet the needs of victims,
offenders the accused, and society.
Great thesis! The only change I'd recommend is that you say 'the accused' instead of offenders. We're currently in the trial process, so they haven't been found guilty yet Justice is enabled when the balance of rights of all parties in the criminal trial process is achieved to the best of the criminal justice system’s ability, particularly through the use of juries, allowing charge negotiation, and ensuring all evidence is received and used impartially and fairly.
I understand that you want to keep the intro short to save time, but it would be ideal if you could add a few more sentences here. Reason being is that you need to set up a strong argument from the get-go. You've done a great job with your thesis statement but try to elaborate on it some more. Why has it only been reasonably effective? What's working, and what's not?The use of a jury system plays a vital role in being a significantly effective source of achieving justice within the criminal trial process.
Great!
Try to keep your other thesis statements like this A jury is able to reflect society’s needs in the decisions they make, rather than the criminal trial be solely handled from a judicial point of view.
Nice! The Jury Act 1912 (NSW) brought the initial use of the jury into the criminal trial process, later amended by the Jury Act 1977 (NSW), which extended definitions and outlined further sections to the Act to ensure the system is not abused.
This history of the jury system isn't doing much for you. I mean sure, it counts as legislation so technically it adds to your essay. However, it's fairly weak. Your statement about how the jury system can reflect the values of society, together with the 2006 amendment is enough. However, prior to the Jury Amendment (Verdicts) Act 2006 NSW, verdicts made by juries had to be unanimous.You haven't really told me what the amendment actually did, you only really said what the legislation was like before the amendment The Jury Amendment (Verdicts) Act 2006 NSW allows for a verdict of 10:2 and a 11:1 to satisfy a conviction, rather than the previous unanimous vote. This law reform was extraordinary in allowing even greater justice to come out of the jury system by preventing cases of a rogue juror purposely dissenting against the rest of the jury for their own personal interest rather than for the greater good of the community.
This is a very bold statement - I'd recommend that you have a statistic such as the amount of hung juries prior to the amendment in order to prove this. The importance of allowing majority verdicts was seen in the case of the Lin Family Murders, where after four trials as a result of hung juries, Robert Xie was found guilty in early 2017 through a 11-1 majority verdict. This case may not have been able to be closed if the reform did not happen, and thus justice would not have been achieved for the victims, or society.
Refer to my comment below - was justice actually achieved?The jury system, and in particular the reforms that have allowed majority verdicts have been undoubtedly effective in achieving justice for all parties within the criminal trial process.
I think that your overall argument is a bit limiting. First off, I'll say that the jury system isn't all that great, and I'd like to see you discuss that in your essay. The 2006 amendment, while allowing for less hung juries, hampers the rights of the accused as the standard of proof is decreased. Furthermore, the case of R v Xie is considered to be the longest murder trial in NSW history. Think about the emotional trauma that the witnesses had to relive as a result of all the retrials, and the millions of dollars that taxpayers (society) had to fork up. So in actuality, it's fairly inaccurate to classify it as 'highly' effective - I'd rather you say partial, just so that it's in line with the argument you produced in your intro. A bit of nuance shows much more sophistication as well. Another point would be jury misconduct - the issue of juries attempting to find the facts of the case outside of trial. Mainly seen in R v Skaf and R v Karakaya. You could remove some of the history of the Jury Act that you can fit this inThe criminal trial process must also take into account the right of offenders when proceedings take place to ensure justice is achieved for all. Legislation embedded in the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) has been a reasonably effective means of achieving justice by assuring actions taken are fair for all parties in a criminal trial.
I'd prefer if you rejigged the past two sentences a bit. Mainly, move the 'reasonably effective' into your first sentence so that your thesis is actually answering the question Section 138 of the act outlines that evidence must be legally obtained for it to be admissible in court. However, whilst this may create fairness, the outcome may not always be seen as correct by victims or society. This can be seen in the case of R v Atkins, where the evidence on police tapes were “ruled as inadmissible evidence, as police at the time had not informed him he was a suspect,” as stated in an article by the ABC in 2016. As a result of the limited amount evidence given through this and Atkins refusal to give evidence of his own, he was acquitted by the jury of the murder and manslaughter of Matthew Leveson. Near a decade later it was still unclear how Leveson was killed, therefore Atkins was “granted a certificate under section 61 of the Coroner’s Act which allowed him immunity from prosecution,” to lead police to the body of Leveson, where he was found, the article continued to say.
This is a hefty description of a single case. Try to be a bit more succinct so that you can relate it to the question much quicker In the case of R v Atkins, highly incriminating police tapes were ruled as inadmissible evidence, thus allowing him to be acquitted of murder. It was only a decade later and through an "immunity from prosecution" (ABC 2016) deal with Atkins that the body could be found and solace delivered to the grieving family members. Legislation created surrounding the use of evidence within the criminal trial process may cause some proceedings to seem morally wrong to victims and society. However, the protections entrenched in this guarantees the rights of all parties are protected, and thus justice is achieved
to a partial extent. just make sure that your linking statement finishes up with your judgement in relation to the questionCharge negotiation has been a partially effective measure in achieving justice, particularly for victims, within the criminal trial process. Injustice within cases may arise from a variety of factors including inequality in the level of accreditation and experience within representation due to socio-economic status, or the incorrect dealing with evidence during the criminal investigation process as mentioned, and thus it can result in the untruthful decision eventually being made. Charge negotiation has been created to ensure justice can be achieved more efficiently and effectively during the criminal trial process.
Good According to the New South Wales Law Reform Commission’s report 147, 83% of all criminal matters in the District Court of New South wales are resolved by a guilty plea, and charge negotiation has played a substantial role in generating this statistic. Section 35A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment Act 2010 (NSW) outlines the procedures of charge negotiation, including the need for the DPP to sign a certificate to say that not only the victim, but also the police officer in charge have seen the agreed statement of facts. This protection ensures that prosecutors are not entering into agreements for their own reputation, and are instead putting achieving justice for the victim as their first priority.
This heavy recount doesn't contribute muchReaching a guilty plea early on in the criminal trial process spares the trauma the victim may have had to go through otherwise, and guarantees that a suitable punishment will be handed down to the offender in accordance with Section 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure Act). However, charge negotiation may not always have this justly outcome. As a part of the negotiation, the charge is likely to be down graded, meaning the offender may receive a lighter punishment than if the criminal trial process was to take place in its entirety.
Bring in R v Loveridge -> Murder charge is reduced to manslaughter. Lots of public outcry, particularly from the victim's mother Judge Berman mentioned in an article by the Daily Telegraph in 2016 that “It is a fundamental part of a proper criminal justice system that offenders are sentenced for what they have actually done and a sentencing judge should never be misled in assessing the criminality of a particular offender’s conduct.” Therefore, whilst charge negotiation has the ability of being an effective means of achieving justice within the criminal trial process, it opportunity for verdicts to end up lighter on offenders than it morally should can cause an injustice for victims.
Hence, charge negotiation is only partially effective in achieving justice in the criminal trial processThe role and reform of the jury system, and the purposes of charge negotiation have been effective in achieving justice, however there are chances for fault.
Although However, their ability to create justice whilst balancing the rights and needs of victims,
offenders the accused and society has been significant, and thus the
trial process has been relatively effective in achieving justice.
Good 
Like the intro though, I'd like to see this extended so that you can really elaborate on everything and drive the argument home 
Home
Help
Search
Login
Topic: Free Legal Essay Marking! (Read 156876 times)