Greetings everyone. Ever since this is my first post , i'll do a little introduction. I'm currently a student studying in Taylors College Subang Jaya in Malaysia completing the South Australian Matriculation Programme (equivalent to SA Year 12).

As following the topic of discussion , i'm currently doing a research regarding the Australian jury system and whether it is still relevant or needs to be abolished. From what i've gathered through law journals and news articles , there are its pros and cons to trial by jury .

Therefore , i'd like to gather your opinions regarding the jury system and whether it should be abolished or not.

i feel the taylor's college students should have a whip-round, and post me the collection.

the classical athenians were vastly more sophisticated about politics than modern people- they practiced it personally, often, and for keeps. they would laugh at the notion of a judge, for they were not ruled by monarchs, as we are. instead, they had professional clerks to organize trials but left decisions in the hands of citizens. in practice, large juries, voted to condemn or acquit, for A or for B in civil suits. a large jury would, they thought, replicate the view of justice held by the citizens of the state.

just as important, a large jury empaneled on the day of trial, could not be bribed. judges, by contrast, can be bribed, threatened, or turn up drunk, sleepy, crazy, or simply unconcerned with justice.

the internet makes citizen involvement in justice easy, judges obsolete. juries should number in the hundred's.

I agree. Rather than throw out the jury, we should throwout the judges, they appear to have little in common with the rest of us.
The jury could then set a sentence with which we may agree, for a change.

Greetings legiteam_obstruxxion

Very interesting DEMOS. I’m inclined to agree.

But it is essential that all members of the jury be tuned into the whole trial process. They also need to be interested in it. That is, not compelled to do something that they really don’t want to do.

One problem with larger juries would be that the onus on each individual is less. The danger there is that some people will be more likely to make decisions based on emotions rather than the facts, or less likely to concentrate on all the facts if they have preconceived notions. If they feel that they are only having a very small part to play in the outcome, then many will feel that the responsibility on them is much less.

I certainly disagree that a single judge should preside over decisions of guilt or innocence in anything other than very minor cases. But large juries numbering in the hundreds would be impractical to organise. So the best balance appears to be a small jury.

Or what about professional juries? A number of people, considerably larger than current Australian juries, paid a decent wage to do the job?

as a matter of fact ludwig, athenian juries were paid, and many old men turned up early every day, hoping to get that day's pay. this somewhat skewed jury opinion toward 'old but poor' attitudes. and male of course, but that's a different matter from a golden age for men.

large juries would be easy in an internet age, and it would be a good idea to give citizens a course in basic principles of law. you could be a 'registered juror' and find 5 to 10 cases in your email each year. not enough to be a burden, and voluntary anyway.

Who is aware of the four step selection process for each juror provided for by our elected members of our State Parliaments ?
Only electors in the general area of the State where the trial is taking place can be selected for juries and not all citizens are eligible for selection, WHY ?
Are the numbers of jurors for civil matters the same as criminal trials ?
Can the statutory selection process be interfered with to remove anybody who is perceived to be a threat to the system of justic

Waah.. nakal betullll lah kamu murid murid.. sedang mengunakan kami untuk menolong kamu punya pelajaran...
Coba belajar sendiri.... otak kami ini ada 'harga' tahu tahu ? :)

hmmm.. zip down to the kedai and have some nice beef rendang and spicy nasi goreng ok..I miss it.

That why I asked the questions I had a suspicion that it was to much to expect and that most who post here would miss it.
Any further discussion on the subject appears to be a waste of time

Wow i'm actually surprised that most of you actually support the jury system . i read an artilce about the jury system in Queensland where the public actually prefer not to serve as jurors out citing reasons like work and family commitments .

Is it also true that employers deduct their employees pay when they're on jury duty ?

we approve of others working, in any field.

jurors get a daily fee from government, employers are entitled to stop pay.

an internet jury could work in leisure time, for a small fee. even if they didn't work in real time from web cams, justice would be much faster than the current standard, days rather than years. this is one of the primary tests of justice, although largely ignored by our political and legal masters.

Legiteam, most people would prefer not to be called up for jury duty. But this lack of willingness doesn’t mean the system is bad, or worse than other options.

I’m just wondering what system you would prefer. I suppose there is really only one other system – single judges, or panels of three or five in very important cases?

DEMOS, the problem with internet juries would be accountability, I would think.

‘Non-cyber’ juries are physically required to attend the whole proceedings. But cyber juries could forego most of the trial and just lob in at the end when the prosecution and defence counsels sum up their cases, or perhaps not even bother to listen to those…. unless they are required to undergo a test to show that they were tuned in to the whole deal....or required to sign in to each session....with a video cam displayed in the courtroom to make sure that each jury member stayed in front of their computer screens.

ludwig, i envision jurors working from recordings and transcripts. the actual trial would simply be a collection of recordings, wouldn't need to bring anyone to a face to face meeting. accused, victim,witnesses, just speak to camera and answer any questions put by interested parties.

it would be quite different to the feudal holdover we use now, and probably much better. certainly faster and cheaper,and probably a lot closer to justice.

Ludwig , i have no other systems in mind other than the jury. My country adopted the single judge concept in 1994 after abolishing the jury system based on the reason that the public wanted speedy trials .Plus the idea that a lone judge with legal knowledge is better than that of ordinary citizens using their own conscience to judge.

Sure , cases are faster with maybe one judge to evaluate the evidence and come up with a guilty verdict. However , the question of corruption always comes into play . The public always says that the judges serving in Malaysia are corrupt and bias.I'll keep my opinions about the Malaysian judicial system to myself,but i'll have to say that not every system or body is free from corruption

Confidence in the system is a huge factor, whether there is corruption or not. If there is any perception of corruption, then the system is deeply flawed.

Single judges would certainly give that perception much more so than juries. So this is one very big factor in the favour of the jury system.

Even if there is no corruption at all, different judges inevitably give very different judgements on the extent of guilt and sentences for the same sorts of cases. This works towards creating a perception of corruption, or of ineptitude on the part of judges that give particularly lenient or harsh sentences – whichever you happen to disagree with.

Professional juries that are considerably larger than in our 12-person system would be even more inclined to make judgements and give sentences that are comparable between cases.

Obviously I feel that sentencing needs to be the role of the jury as well as the determination of guilt or innocence.

I can’t see why the jury system would necessarily have to be slower or significantly more cumbersome than a single-judge system. Even if it is, the perception of a ‘slow and thorough’ system has surely got to be better than ‘quick and corrupted’.

It would be helpful if legitaem actually presented the reasoning for bothering with his research. Isn't it obvious why juries were invented? Never give the government, or a single individual the power to condemn you to death or imprisonment based on an arbitrary law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury#Jury_equity

Well i do bother about my research being that it plays a crucial part in my civic participation assessment . BEsides , a lil' knowledge about the trial by jury wouldn't hurt . I don't know how it's like to embrace a justice system that's more trustable than using ones peers to decide betwwen guilty or not guilty .

Besides , i've been wanting to know . How is trial by jury in a way democratic ? Is it because the people are directly involved in administering justice ?

As a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” I AM TOO AWARE THAT THE FRAMERS OF THE Constitution did give some guarantee as to a jury and more extensiver then many realise. (See
my blog at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH)
For example NULLIFICATION, where the jury can NULLIFY the law and refuse to convict a person if they deem it to be against the general public’s interest to convict. However, when I was called up for jury service and was shown a video about what a jury is entitled to do, I immediately complained that JURY NULLIFICATION was concealed from the jurors. Well, I was no longer required to be a juror, and never again called up.
What we have now is that juries are forced to find a person GUILTY if there is evidence, regardless that they would have wanted to find the person “not guilty”. That is not JUSTICE! It is no more but judicial abuse where the judges seek to maximise convictions to be obtained.
While the High Court of Australia has disregarded the application of the Magna Charta the reality is that the Magna Charta remains applicable as it is a principle embedded in the Constitution and so the jury usage.
The Commonwealth of Australia has no constitutional powers to deal with CIVIL RIGHTS and LIBERTY but the High Court of Australia in the Thomas case purported otherwise.
A jury system is needed as to have sanity in matters, as without a jury system anyone is in the hands of judges who can manipulate their powers, and far too often do.
I would suggest to check out http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au as the person John Wilson is very strong on this issue of Jury also