Need your help! (1 Viewer)

[tjis]

HI everyone,
i'm dong a research topic on whether judges are better at making just outcomes than juries.
And i have found some information that the jury system has some disadvantages like the slow presentation of evidence by the jury , the inconvenience and the cost of jury service.
However, judges usully base their decisions on the rule of law and have legal background.
What are your views on these reasons?
And also can someone explain to me the importance of independence of judiciary regarding this matter?
Thanks alot.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

 

[goan_crazy]

Heres some stuff from my notes on judges and juries
Hope it helps

•Judges using their discretion making decisions which bind of the laws of precedence

-JUDICIAL DISCRETION:
Judges and magistrates have the power to make different decisions/choices when enforcing the law.
a) Interpreting statutes
b) Sentencing within minimum and maximum statutory guidelines.
c) Taking into account mitigating and aggravating factors. E.g. age, gender, family background.

-JUDGES: conduct a trial according to the rules of the court, supervise proceedings, exclude evidence, pass sentence

JUDGES:
•Are in control of court proceedings
•duty to sum up for the benefit of the jury.
•Involves the use of wide discretion.

*EVIDENCE:
Judges can only consider evidence played before them in open court. They cannot consider anything the accused was not charged with. Defence counsel has to be present at all times.
Judges use pre-sentence reports; including social background of the accused (usually contain an interview by the accused with a psychologist). Heresay evidence may be admitted.

*JUDICAL DISCRETION AND LIMITS ON DISCRETION:
The Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and other statutes set a maximum punishment but judges have the final say as to the actual punishment. However judges have discretion to fix punishment according to the “circumstances” presented to the court.

*MAXIMUM PENALTIES:
Statute law sets a maximum punishment which is not always given by the judge but can be given. Judges are often criticized for giving lenient sentences. The Sentencing Act 1989 (NSW) now sets a minimum sentence for some offences

FACTORS AFFECTING THE DECISION…
•judges use discretion and consider:
-offender’s circumstances and character
-prior convictions
-mitigating circumstances/factors (E.g. drug addiction, effect of the sentence etc)
-likelihood of rehabilitation

-TRIAL BY JURY:
•usually 12 jurors
•3 peremptory challenges (no cause)
•jurors are selected from electoral roles
•used in <1% of criminal cases

ROLE OF A JURY IN A CRIMINAL CASE:
Listen to evidence presented and decide beyond reasonable doubt, the guilt or innocence of the accused.

 

[melsc]

The indepedance of the judiciary stems from the notion of the separartion of powers which is supposed to provide checks and balances on the use of power It is also supposed to prevent judges from being pursuaded to make their decisions based on a political agenda etc, judges can't be 'sacked' so that they can make decisions without fearing the govt will fire them, thus ensuring they make the correct decision according to the law/facts not what they government of the day wants.

The use of juries comes from the notion that people are judged by their 'peers' or so to speak, therefore they are judged on the facts not the law.

Geez I sound like a cynical law student, Joe gave you a good summary so run with that. I hope mine helps... Good luck