Or what about professional juries? The section was based on a provision contained in the United States' Constitution, 1 which in turn rests on the philosophy that people charged with serious offences are entitled to have their guilt or innocence determined by the judgement of their peers. It is your decision to choose which option you want to go with but remember you have an attorney who can also help you to make this difficult decision. In the history of this country, the transition from military panel to civilian jury for the determination of criminal guilt represented the most important step in the progress from military control to civilian self-government. Plainly this section evinces a 'contrary intention' for the purposes of section 4G of the Crimes Act. A juror is only doing the job for a couple of weeks, which isn't generally long enough to get into those kind of problems.
Secondly, it reduces the effect of criminal creating judge nexus. Long trials usually create hasty verdicts. Research into this issue is rare; see M. A jury trial may also work to your advantage if the evidence against you is pretty damning — in this situation a judge is not likely to let you off, but with a jury you may just get lucky. They can change their opinion any time they want.
If he gets bored, if he stops paying attention and then understands something in a wrong way, that might influence his whole vision of what happened. That also results in inaccurate and biased decisions. Australians who do not show up are subject to fines although those who were ill or otherwise incapable of voting on election day can have their fines waived. In theory, a jury is unbiased for the reason that it is not a part of the system of justice. Where offences are made subject to substantial periods of imprisonment, the legislation should make it clear that the trials should take place on indictment.
You may think that the plaintiff had the best evidence and was in the right but another juror could feel just the opposite. Instead, it allows private litigants to settle disputes in amicable means through pre-trial and discovery settlements, where non-contested facts will be agreed upon to try not to deal with them in the litigation process. A retrial was ordered, and the defendant was subsequently found not guilty. The latter aspect aroused the suspicion of church interests who were concerned about funding of education, and the proposal proved to be quite contentious during the campaign. On the other hand if the accused is a pure evil reprobate who has committed a despicable crime with a tricky technical defence, go with the Judge alone option. There are, however, two instances in which a court may make inquiry into the secret deliberations of a jury. The objective here is to present all the facts for the benefit of the jury and the judge in deciding what really happened and who should be held responsible.
It is never a good feeling to have to go to trial for any reason but if you find yourself in the middle of a criminal or civil case, think hard before deciding which type of trial you want to go with. It would also leave intact the scheme by which indictable offences can be tried summarily with the consent of the parties, under section 4J of the Crimes Act 1914 Cth -subject, of course, to any successful challenge to section 4J based on Brown's case. The same goes for a preponderance of evidence. Section 80 lays down as a fundamental law of the Commonwealth that the trial on indictment of any offence against any of the laws of the Commonwealth shall be by jury. In some sections falling within the first category, which plainly create indictable offences, the legislation provides for a maximum of 2 years' imprisonment for example, sections 27 2 and 83.
With some exceptions, it provides that indictable federal offences punishable by imprisonment for a period not exceeding 10 years may unless the contrary intention appears be heard summarily 'with the consent of the prosecutor and the defendant'. Pronouncements made in cases where the offences were plainly not serious cannot be binding on courts which have to determine whether offences carrying substantial periods of incarceration must be dealt with by juries. Most accused have no interest in a fast trial. The adversarial litigation approach is sometimes criticized for setting up a system where sides on a case are required to contest with each other. Thirdly, judges because of years spent gathering legal knowledge can solve complex issues more effectively.
Also, because the judges do have a full understanding of the law, they understand fully the terms that are used to make a decision. The judge plays the role of fact finder and the ruler of procedure and matters of law. While jurors are always told not to get emotionally involved, they are still human and may use emotion when deliberating no matter what they are told. So, the judge decides the credibility of evidence as well as what happens at the trial according to the rule of law and procedure. The Jury System A jury composed of the members of the community is present at the trial to act as fact finders.
Jury is undoubtedly part and parcel to the essence of a fair trial in the context of the English Legal system or in a wider context, the common law system. There is a certain level of certainty. This is believed by critics to encourage deception and other questionable legal tactics, as the objective is to win at all costs, instead of evaluating the facts to learn the truth. It would avoid arguments of the sort raised in the Archdall case the first argument. The Crown sought special leave to appeal to the High Court.
Advantages and Disadvantages Both the jury system and the bench system have their pros and cons. Throughout the centuries the great legal minds have sought to protect and defend the right to trial by jury. The nature of the jury as a body of ordinary citizens called from the community to try the particular case offers some assurance that the community as a whole will be more likely to accept a jury's verdict than it would be to accept the judgment of a judge or magistrate who might be, or be portrayed as being, over-responsive to authority or remote from the affairs and concerns of ordinary people. Higgins had said that Wise's comments would have been 'mere clap trap' in the mouth of anyone else; O'Connor said that the Parliament could be trusted not to increase the list of summary offences; Isaacs reiterated his warning when Barton successfully moved to amend the clause by substituting 'on indictment of any offence' for 'of all indictable offences'-to preserve summary jurisdiction for contempt proceedings: Convention Debates, Melbourne, 1898, vol. Judges are appointed by the state to decide the cases. After the judge acquitted him due to insufficient evidence, the next two officers also elected to have bench trial and were acquitted as well.
Even the minority, who considered that the right to jury trial could be waived, shared that approach. That means a judge is more likely to be capable of reaching the correct verdict. Of the 5387 defendants dealt with in 1995-96, approximately 90 per cent 4842 were dealt with summarily, while approximately 10 per cent 545 were dealt with on indictment. Judges are trained to put feelings aside and follow the letter of the law. Bench trial or jury trial? Other common assertions about the benefits of trial by jury is that it provides a means of interjecting community norms and values into judicial proceedings and that it legitimizes the law by providing opportunities for citizens to validate criminal statutes in their application to specific trials. According to Brennan J: Trial by jury is not only the historical mode of trial for criminal cases prosecuted on indictment; it is the chief guardian of liberty under the law and the community's guarantee of sound administration of criminal justice. We are taught that being selected as a juror is our civil duty and constitutional right as citizens.