Jury system in Australias' court

Jury system in Australia’s court
Name
Course
University
Tutor
Date
Jury system in Australia’s court
Background
After the Norman Conquest of England, the Frankish ritual of inquisitions was joined with the present Anglo-Saxon county court; as a result the English jury was formed. The county court involved a monthly meeting of all free men of the shire to judge on civil and governmental issues that concerned the occupants of the shire. A group of 12 men would be gathered to solve a dispute depending on the knowledge they had concerning the argument. These men chosen acted as eyewitness to the fact. If they gave wrong facts, then their property was taken away and they ended up in prison.
A jury in an illegal case comprise of twelve individuals. The jury in a civil case comprise of four or six individuals. The jury system came first, before the current systems of courts of law. It originated from England, during the times of the Anglo-Saxons. There was a practice during those times whereby a person claimed to have violated a law would be set free if the allowed number of people emerged and swore that they knew he was not guilty. Though there have been attempts by the Parliament to eliminate the power of the jury in specific types of crimes, and to restrict their use in civil cases, the jury system is still famous as part of the law.
The change of the jury from being a symbol of truth to a type of trial took place significantly in the criminal field, though trial by jury for serious criminal issue was not known until the Norman Conquest. Before, a charged person would be tried by combat, ordeal or compurgation. The jury system was found as a method of retrieving information instead of safeguarding the freedom of the accused. But by mid-15th century, the nature of the jury system had encountered some changes. Though their number still remained 12, they were not supposed to have nay information concerning the accusation, and were only supposed to judge according to the evidence given under oath.
During the Tudor period, the jury system was viewed as a panel that would declare about the facts of the accusations before the law was applied. In the 17th century, the jury was stated to be independent and free from external influence that they encountered when deciding their verdict. As a result, the jury was viewed as people who would safe guard the freedom of the charged person. This was indicated by the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where juries discarded the Crown’s accusation.
The jury system gets some security from the Australian Constitution although not enough. Section 80 of the bill of rights for Australia ensures that the trial on accusation of any crime against any ruling of the Common wealth shall be by jury. In a number of cases starting with the R v Archdall in 1928, the High Court strongly restricted the security given by these terms. The jury trial was to be given where the state government has ruled that a trial is on indictment. This meant that the common wealth may select when the charged person would receive a jury trial.
Accordingly, there is no person unrestricted to a jury system, even in a case where a person is accused of a crime leading to life imprisonment. Apparently, it is logical that serious trials should be tried by the jury. However, there is no section in the constitution that states that serious case must be tried “on accusation”. If a case does not start with an indictment, a jury is not needed (Gifford, 1997).
Although well founded in England, the idea of a jury system was not first welcomed in New South Wales. This is because New South Wales was a villain settlement; the constitution of a jury of unbiased people was hard to impose. But in 1807, the Governor was sure that the qualified number for the jury service was enough. The Act of 1832 given for trials of criminal cases in which a person from the government wanted to be listened before a jury, qualifications for jury adhered to the laws of the English courts; only men between the age of 21 and 60 and financially stable, qualified to serve as jurors. They paid a specific annual income and daily allowances. If jurors failed to attend any hearing, they were fined.
In 1898, a Jury Act was permitted by the Parliament to combine the present law concerning the jury. It included responsibility and requirement to serve, discharge from service, process of selection, and the processes involved. Men who are not natives of the land, or involved in treason, or any offences were disqualified from the jury service. Among those disqualified from the jury service included members of Parliament, ministers of religion, lawyers and clerks, doctors, journalists, bank managers, chemists, and public servants (Kapardis, 2003).
Women were not qualified to act as jurors according to the 1898 Act, members of parliament said that women were unfit for the jury position. In 1924, one member of the Legislative Assembly said that women judge by feeling instead of logic. This notion was applied in relation to women’s qualifications to be chosen justices of the peace from 1920. Women were qualified to serve in the jury system after the Juries Act of 1957 was imposed; however, the same act gave women a full right to be excused from the jury system. The select committee of the legislative council stated that women should take the same tasks as men despite their homeduties. But the government did not accept the statement.
The 1957 Act also had the impact of increasing the liability of the jury service to a broader area of the country by eliminating the qualification for the investment of assets. In addition, the selection process was based on elections and not names given by the police of those who possessed property. As a result, the Aboriginal people became unsuitable to serve as juries. This is because they were not qualified to vote; voting was made a must for them in 1983. But, a variety of cultural and social aspects reduced the chances with which the Aboriginal group could serve in the jury system.
Few changes were made to the Juries Act in 1972 and 1973, but the most important amendment took place in 1984 as a result of the suggestions of the Commission. Three major changes took places which are in effect unto modern days. First, women were allowed to serve in the jury, the wives of judges and clergy men were not eliminated. Secondly, the elimination of people to serve in the jury because of crimes they committed was no longer effective rather their qualification depended on the penalty inflicted. Finally, the initial division into two of jurors being was replaced by division into three methods involving ideas of eligibility, skill and reason.
Jury selection process
The Juries Act 1957 outline the method used in selecting the jury system. The procedure begins with the gathering of lists of potential jurors for each district. The Sheriffs gives the Electoral Commission with the planned number of jurors for each district and the same number of electors who are responsible for the jury; selected by chance from the computer.
Function of the jury
The jury system in Australia has been stated to be the key of freedom under the law and the society’s assurance of fair administration of criminal justice. The jury system helps not only in administering justice but also protecting the accused from the harsh treatment of the society. The fact that the jury is from the public, give some guarantee that the community will support the judge’s verdict compared to a verdict from the judge or magistrate.
The contribution of the community as jury members, in the administration of justice consequently makes legal the criminal justice system. It enhances the idea of equality and guarantees that the concerns of the community are properly addressed. While the efficiency of the jury system may be uncertain, the trust the community has in the jury system is more valuable.
The main purpose of the jury is to judge whether the charged person is guilty with no doubt. In addition, the jury may also judge whether the accused is mentally well to plead to the accusation. The purpose of the jury in a civil case is to determine between the parties on the balance of possibilities and grant damages. But, their roles are restricted. The limitation of their role depends upon the nature of the case and what the parties want to get using the jury system. For example, the parties may wish for a jury judgment on certain issues only, therefore finding the facts, and then discussing the legal impact of those facts and the amount to be given before the judge. 
Advantages of using the jury system
As jurors are chosen randomly from the society, the verdict of the accused lies in the hands of the normal people, who represent the view of the public. The hearing are made easier because the lawyers and those involved in the case, they use a language that can be used by everyone. They are also in a position to explain any difficult issues that are not understood. The public is also well represented even though they may not be economically stable, or from other cultural backgrounds, or even gender.
The jury does not have any relationship with the charged person. Therefore, the jurors go to courts with unbiased minds. Therefore, they have no fear of expressing their ideas and views since there is nothing to gain or lose because of their verdicts. This helps in administering fairness and justice. As jurors must reach to one common agreement, there low chances of making the wrong judgment.
One advantage of using the jury system in a criminal trial is that the jury can function as a shield between the public and the government. The power it has to set free innocent individuals, prevent the misuse of power by the government to the civilians. Secondly, juries act as an indic...