Hi, I was just wondering if I could get some feedback on a response.
Greatly appreciated.
VCAA 2007 Question 13 (extended response) (10 marks) (Four pages were allocated) b) A legal writer recently commented:I believe that the jury is one of the most important institutions in ensuring that Australia has an effective legal system. However, not everyone agrees with me. Critically evaluate the extent to which the jury system contributes to an effective legal system, and justify your conclusion.
My response:
As stated above the jury is one of the most important institutions in ensuring that Australia has an effective legal system for a number of reasons. Those reasons include, its cross section of the people, it involves the general community, reflects community values, ensures less legal jargon and helps to protect democracy. However, there are some limitations to the jury system.
A trial by jury represents trial by ones' peers. A jury is made up of average men and women who are not selected as people in a position of authority but are, as far as possible, a cross section of the community. An accused person can therefore feel confident that they are not being oppressed by authority but are being tried by people like themselves within the community. However, it is not possible to have a true cross section of the community because communities comprise of interest groups with different views and values. A jury is also not a true cross section of society because some members of the community are ineligible, disqualified or excuse and because each side has a right to challenge jurors to try to achieve a jury they think that may favour their side. The decision of the jury may not, therefore reflect community values.
A person who serves on a jury is able to participate in the legal system and see the legal system in operation. This can help members of society improve their knowledge of how the legal system works and generally help those participating to gain confidence in the legal system. The task of a juror is exhausting as they are expected to collate, remember, analyse and interpret the facts of the case and to follow the instructions of the judge, as well as being unbiased and unemotional. A juror might experience difficult in understanding the complicated nature of some evidence and the sheer volume of evidence. They are expected to concentrate for long periods of time and comprehend everything. If they are unable to, an unjust outcome can result during deliberations if not all evidence is considered. This can make the process even longer and cause more strain on the parties involved.
The jury is able to reflect community values and take into account the social, moral and economic values of time. A jury can make a decision from the point of view of the ordinary person and does not need to give a reason for its decision. The jury members can carefully follow the points of laaws explained by the judge or ignore the law if they disagree with it. If the jury decides not to make a decision based on the law, it would be difficult to come up with just one reason for the decision among the whole jury, so it could lead to a hung jury. This wil create more stress for the parties as the case must take longer and thus becoming more expensive.
The presence of a jury should ensure that evidence is given ina clear and non-techniqual way, with legal jargon kept to a minimum. The legal personnel have to explain legal concepts to the jury throughout the trial. This enables the parties to the case to have a better understanding of what is going on within the court. This can delay the effectiveness of the legal system because legal personnels must educate average people of the legal procedures. The jury is made up of average people, most of whom would have little knowledge or experience of courtroom proecdures, and they may feel quite confused and overwhelmed by the courtroom formalities. Legal personnels must take time to informt he jury details of the case which acn be time consuming, delaying the resolution and it can eb build onto the parties stress having to wait for a solution.
A jury which is made up of representatives of the people, is another way in which the people are involved in the system and are able to scrutinise the interpretation and aplication of the law. The jury is also able to scrutinise the role of the judge, who are not electeed but have considerable power over the lives of individual members of society. While jurors may be able to scrutinise the judge, the jurors have biases which may influece their decision and judgements. Usually jurors take the task of being on jury very seriously and they are meant to put aisde all biases. When making a decision during deliberation and listening to the evidence it may be difficult for jurors to put aaside their biases and this can result in an unjust outcome.
For these reasons I agree with the comment made by the legal writer, that is, the jury system is an important institution in ensuring Australia's legal system is effective. It incrrase the community involvement in their civic duty, knowledge in the lega lsystem and confidence in the system. Despite some minor issues that can be overcome over time, it ensures that parties are trialed by others like themselves.
WOW that took a while to type up. Sorry for any typos. As I was typing this I noticed I didn't relate to the "effectiveness" part. I will correct it myself.
But please. I am open to ALL feedback.
THANK YOU!