Example research essay topic: 2 Nd Edition British Politics - 1,318 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

... cause they think that a jury is more likely to acquit them, 3 it delays the prison sentence or at least allows some of it to be served in more comfort while awaiting trail. Currently 80 % of either ways elect to be summarily tried by the magistrates. Of those who go to the crown court on 2 in 7 are the defendant elections the remaining five are directed there by the magistrates. The main compliant against loosing the right to elect which court the defendant is tried is that magistrates once they have decided on guilt can refer the case to the crown court for sentencing where they consider their sentencing powers insufficient.

This is at odds with the governments projected benefit that a person not having a trial by jury will not get the stronger crown court imposed sentence and makes a mockery of 66 million saving caused by the shorter custodial magistrate imposed sentencing. No matter what court the defendant should, with the consent of the court, elect to be tried by judge alone without a jury. On account of highly technical evidence or requiring an explanation of the judgement which would reveal any mistakes and open the way for appeal. But is not this creating the same choice that started the whole either way issue in the first place? Will in another 150 years the facts be presented to imply that there was never any right to trail by jury Occasionally the jury will return a verdict that the judge and prosecution is not happy about; these are known as perverse verdicts by others as pious perjury. Paragraphs 99 - 108 of the Auld report recommends that statutes should be put in place declaring that juries have no right to acquit in defiance of the law.

It should also further recommend that the brass plaque venerating the jury of the 1670 Bushell case, where it was established the jury as the sole finder of fact and could give a verdict according to their conscience, be removed and hidden away somewhere. Auld (paragraphs 66 - 67) goes on to say that the prosecution should have a right of appeal if the jury return a perverse verdict which is possibly a breach of the double jeopardy rule. However the judges of today must remember that it was their predecessors who helped created the trend for perverse verdicts in the early 1800 s. A notable example being Lord Mansfield who directed a jury to under value a trinket to bring its value below 40 shillings and thus avoid the death penalty. When the defendant protested that the trinkets fashion value alone was more Mansfield replied God forbid, gentleman, we should hang a man for fashion alone. 4 If the purpose of the jury if it is to solely to find fact and decide on point of law then the best policy would be to scrap the adversarial system and move to an inquisitorial one that determines all the facts and all the points of law as opposed to just those elements that the lawyers choose to reveal. Or to ask, as American courts can very occasionally do, for a special verdict where the jury decide the facts and present these to the judge who decides on law, guilt and sentence.

Lord Devlin stated that trail by jury is not so much an instrument at getting at the truth as a process to ensure that no innocent person is convicted. 5 The legal profession serves the law. The law however serves the public. Law is derived from and is an expression of society's morality In the absence of moral commitment to support it, law ceases being part of society. 6 Society is supposed to influence the law by the nature of the government they elect in. However as both major parties are attempting to out position each other by getting tougher on crime the only place where the public can truly influence the law is from the jury box. If the law does not reflect the norms of society the jury will construe facts, in their own mind, such that the law suggested by the judge is not applicable to the case before them Though it is improbable the jury may have read the following passage by a rather famous writer on jurisprudence a persons may be punished if, and only if, he has voluntarily done something morally wrong; secondly, that his punishment must in some way match, or be equivalent of, the wickedness of his offence leading to what sort of conduct may be punished? , How severely? , and What is the justification for the punishment Hart, HLA.

Punishment & Responsibility p 230 Could it be that the jury is applying the spirit of the law and not the letter. The legal profession is interpreting according to the literal rule but the jury knows only, instinctively, of the golden rule? The jury has total freedom to decide. More in fact than the Law Lords for, despite the 1966 practice statement, they are still bound by principle of stare decision. Lord Halsham summed this situation up in 1967 to do justice according to the law as it is, and not according to the state of affairs as they wish it to be. 7 Who then proceeded to cast his vote against his stated moral position. It is somewhat strange that as trail by jury is beginning to appear in former Eastern bloc countries and is being reintroduced into Spain and possibly Japan for a limited number of cases that its use in England where it originated is declining.

The Government claims that lawyers see the loss of trail by jury as a threat to their incomes however the appeal process against a magistrates decision to commit the case to summary trail offers many opportunities for appeals and challenges in a whole new field Justice is being seen, by the government, as a product; the administration of which is being redesigned to be as efficient as possible. The design of the legal system has always been to keep the greatest majority of cases heard in the magistrates where they can be processed quickly and cheaply. With the complexity of cases increasing it is time to drop such a mathematical approach to justice. If the courts can not cope with the volume of cases in a timely fashion then the apparatus of justice should be expanded not its mechanics changed. Trail by jury should not be sold for a better bottom line in the legal systems accounts

The civil cases that are still entitled to trail by jury are fraud, deformation of character, and two others Hansard 27 Feb 1997 Column 436 In 2001 juries acquitted 25 % of cases compared with 17 % in 1997. web > 2 / 12 / 01 Is our jury system so perverse, The Observer October 14, 2001 web > Karen and Zeisel, 1966, p 190 cited in Justice Democracy and the Jury James p 13 Emile Durkin cited in SWOT Jurisprudence pp 130 - 138 Cited in The New British Politics

Research essay sample on 2 Nd Edition British Politics