Australias Unfair Legal System :: miscellaneous

Australias inequitable Legal SystemIn theory all dialog box governances (which shed existed for almost 800 years) be fair and just. The jury formation originated in England and has so far failed in cases (all too common) when defendants ar wrongfully prosecuted or convicted of crimes which they did not commit. In societies without a jury system, panels of judges act as stopping point makers. They weigh the evidence and apply the equity. In the court system, criminal law is interpreted by a jury who are seen as expressing the horse sense of justice of modal(a) men and women. Juries date back to the Middle Ages in England, and while membership, role, and importance have changed throughout the ages, they were part of the system of Englands Common Law. The purpose of the jury system was to ensure the civil remediates of the ordinary citizen. It is important to remember that at the time, ordinary people had few rights. I believe that the jury system is an unfair system due to t he limitations which are included during jury selection. Many professionals and groups of people are exempt from jury service police or anyone dealing with the law (law student, lawyer, judges, assessors), anyone dealing in medicine (doctors, nurses), small or large business knowledgeers Pregnant women or women in general can claim special considerations, along with teachers, accountants, ministers of religion, or generally anyone with a professional/education. So due to this, people who arrange on a jury can be unemployed or part of a less educated and informed strata of society. Due to such limitations within the jury selection process, it is hardly said to be a fair and just system. In Europe, defendants are al airs tried by judges and assessors which I believe to be a much fairer way in deciding the innocence or guilt of a person. Assessors are legally qualified magistrates, with long experience in presiding over their own courts. When sitting in the superior court as assesso rs they are not mere advisors, but an integral part of the court. They have the same right as the judge to question the witnesses. Legal issues which are decided completely by the judge or panel of judges are evaluated prior to this decision by the assessors together with the judges, deliberating and voting with equal status. Decisions under this system seem much fairer and more reliable than under the jury system as it exists today.