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

The Individual and the Court System - EssayThe Australian jury trial musical arrangement is said to turn out many merits and defects, and as Winston Churchill once said about democracy the Australian jury constitution is not a perfect system, it is just the least worst of every last(predicate) the others. In analysing the system several major strengths can be seen, tho many weaknesses can be found also. It is a matter of long interest in the general community and many people pass 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 eyeball of the community it remains a vital expression of the importance of arbitrator being adjudicated upon by ordinary citizens. Without a jury system, it is claimed that the liberties of individuals would be adjudicated upon by unrep resentative experts who would further remove the workings of the legal system from those it is meant to help 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 test of society who can reflect the values of the community they serve. In upstart years it is argued that juries have effectively expressed community attitudes on divers(prenominal) matters including passive smoking, reckless drunk driving and self defense claims in murder trials by 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 grounds of important issues and principles. Without a jury it is argued the organic evolution of the principles of our legal system would become increasingly complex and removed from the understanding of the community. In general the commu nity is more likely to have office in the decision of a representative group of that community than matchless made by a single judge or a court appointed panel of experts.If the system was removed it would open the adjudication unconscious 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 genuinely open to public scrutiny. It is also argued by some that in diversity... ... and feeling it extra their ability to absorb evidence. "They felt that the barristers hadnt given them information that they required by the evidence," One juror mentioned that "It was a bit like being thr profess and twisted 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 sy stem there are a number of reasons for its continuation. This seems to designate 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 charter for specialised jurors and the ability for civil juries to loot 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 its change is made.BibliographyStructures and Systems, Willmott. J and Dowse. J, 2001, Western Australia, Politics jurisprudence PublishingBulletin with Newsweek, 7/6/2004, Vol. 122 Issue 6428, p22, 4pwww.ebsco.com - Jury Problems