CRIMINAL JUSTICE JURY MOST RELAIBLE FOR DETERMINING GUILT OR Essay

CRIMINAL JUSTICE JURY MOST RELAIBLE FOR DETERMINING GUILT OR INNOCENCE, LEGAL FACTORS THAT AFFECT JURIES DECISIONS, ARE THEIR DECISIONS RELIABLE AND VALID, - Essay Example (King, 1999) This was the only right that was agreed unanimously by the twelve participating states. Accordingly the trial jury acquired veto power over the law and became more powerful than any government official such as Judges. An appeals court in the United States described the power of a jury "unreviewable and irreversible" over that of a trail judge. (Jurors Handbook) The jury system has become one of the most important aspects of criminal procedures in many countries, though the procedures adopted differ from country to country and even within a country as is evident in the United States, nevertheless, the jury is perceived to bring in certain attributes of the communities to bear. In Australia, the jury list is made up of people who had been elected from randomly from the electoral rolls,2 same for the United States, where potential jurors are now randomly selected by a computer using electoral or driver's licenses records. (Doyle, 2004) The duties of a jury are to asses only the facts of a case in reaching a verdict, but there are certain factors that affect the conduct or predisposition of any potential or chosen juror. Juries can be influenced by the Judges, attorneys, defendants, their particular lifestyles and beliefs and many other possible factors. Various studies conducted have shown that jurors could be influenced beyond the scope of evidence by a defendants attributes e.g. race, status or sex. For example, in one of the studies conducted,(Decaire, n.a.) white and black male subjects were exposed to cases with defendants and victims of varied races, it was observed that in cases involving white victims the white subjects (jurors) showed bias, placing higher guilt against black defendants accused of crimes against white people, thus showing that jury recommendations can be influenced by their individual stereotype of crime and the alleged criminal. Judge decisions. Judicial influence over any jury trial is as important as the role the jurors play. Though it is the members of the jury who return the guilty or innocent verdict, the powers of a presiding judge also allows him to prevent the introduction of 'illegal' evidence or argument by counsels in support of both prosecution and defences. Judges do not tell jurors what to deduce from the evidence presented to them, but they have powers to prevent the jurors from hearing any evidence deemed not suitable to achieving a fair trial. For instance, if a jury is presiding over a rape case, the sitting judge might not allow the jury hear evidence of the rape victim's past sexual history. This is to prevent the jurors being influenced by facts outside the present case. Psychological or expert witness. The role of expert-witness in the criminal justice system is a person who has some special training or experience in a criminal behavioural area and can help the judge, lawyers and the juries arrive at the truth in the judicial process. (Yablonsky, 1998) Most of these experts are however paid consultants and present evidence that advance the case of their clients. They are therefore mostly perceived as 'hired guns' and their credibility questioned. Recently in the UK, Professor Sir Roy Meadow's name was struck off the