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

The Individual and the Court System - EssayThe Australian dialog box trial system is tell to hurl many merits and defects, and as Winston Churchill once said about democracy the Australian jury system is not a perfect system, it is just the to the lowest degree 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 social function of great interest in the general familiarity 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 remain 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 expe rts who would that 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 express community attitudes on diverse matters including passive smoking, reckless drunk driving and self defense claims in murder trials by women who had suffered repeated physical and noetic 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 trustin gness in the decision of a representative group of that community than one made by a single judge or a motor hotel 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 matt-up that the barristers hadnt 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 in that location 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 its cont inuation. 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 go out be focused on the wish 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 its change is made.BibliographyStructures and Systems, Willmott. J and Dowse. J, 2001, Western Australia, Politics Law createBulletin with Newsweek, 7/6/2004, Vol. 122 Issue 6428, p22, 4pwww.ebsco.com - Jury Problems