The Individual and the Court System Essay -- essays research papers f

The Individual and the Court System - Essay The Australian jury trial system is said to have many merits and defects, and as Winston Churchill once said about democracy the Australian jury system is â€Å"not a perfect system, it is just the least worst of all the others†. In analysing the system several major strengths can be seen, but many weaknesses can be found also. It is a matter of great interest in the general community and many people have written on it, ranging from past jurors to university students. Some of the main strengths seen are that juries have established philosophical and historical importance within our community. The jury system is a centuries old tradition of our legal system and in the eyes of the community it remains a vital expression of the importance of justice being adjudicated upon by ordinary citizens. Without a jury system, it is claimed that the liberties of individuals would be adjudicated upon by unrepresentative experts who would further remove the workings of the legal system from those it is meant to serve in the wider community. It is also seen that the random selections of jury members from a cross section of society ensures that the law remains adjudicated upon by a representative sample of society who can reflect the values of the community they serve. In recent years it is argued that juries have effectively expressed community attitudes on diverse matters including passive smoking, reckless drunk driving and self defense claims in murder trials b y women who had suffered repeated physical and mental abuse. The existence of a jury means that lawyers must ensure that their cases are presented in a way that enables community understanding of important issues and principles. Without a jury it is argued the evolution of the principles of our legal system would become increasingly complex and removed from the understanding of the community. In general the community is more likely to have confidence in the decision of a representative group of that community than one made by a single judge or a court appointed panel of experts. If the system was removed it would open the adjudication process of civil and criminal trials up to the possibility of political or monetary influence - the jury is a vital institution for ensuring that 'open courts' remain truly open to public scrutiny. It is also argued by some that 'in diversity... ... and feeling it limited their ability to absorb evidence. "They felt that the barristers hadn't given them information that they required through the evidence," One juror mentioned that "It was a bit like being thrown pieces of a jigsaw puzzle and there were pieces that were missing and they had to fill those pieces with their own experience". It is arguable which side holds more sway, while it seems that the majority of published reports deal with the defects of the system there are a number of reasons for it's continuation. This seems to fate that it unlikely to be abolished entirely in either civil or criminal courts. It seems to me that any changes that are to be made will be focused on the need for specialised jurors and the ability for civil juries to award damages. As crimes become increasingly more complex it seems that changes will need to be made to the system but it will be a heatedly debated subject when it's change is made. Bibliography Structures and Systems, Willmott. J and Dowse. J, 2001, Western Australia, Politics Law Publishing Bulletin with Newsweek, 7/6/2004, Vol. 122 Issue 6428, p22, 4p www.ebsco.com - Jury Problems