to vote or who are not Australian citizens are also removed from this process. Given the statistics indicating that indigenous Australians are underrepresented on the electoral role, this is also another way in which society is not fully represented through jury service and hinders a fair and unbiased trial. A possible reform to the jury system that may enhance its effectiveness would be to reduce the number of challenges available and limit those who are ineligible. This would ensure a greater cross section of society is represented as even those with legal knowledge are eligible. However, this may hinder a fair and unbiased trial as those with legal knowledge may influence other jurors. The empanelment process also takes time, as opposed to just having a judge hear a case, seriously hindering the timely resolution of a dispute. A possible alternative to the jury system that would assist in providing a timely resolution of dispute and thus an effective legal system is to abolish the current system and replace it with a panel of judges. There would therefore be more than one opinion and one experience of a case, but it would be of legally trained and experienced individuals who need no direction or explanation. Although, this takes away from the fair and unbiased nature of trial by one’s peers. Further, it may be impossible for jurors to remain totally impartial and unbiased due to media coverage of some cases. Society is saturated by social media and news stories often relay details of serious cases. If jurors know of a case before this can seriously inhibit their ability to remain impartial. For example, in the Gable Tostee case of 2016, saturation of media coverage regarding the tinder date/death case meant that it may have been impossible to find a jury panel who knew nothing of the case. This seriously hinders the ability for a fair and unbiased trial. Even though the jury is often not a true cross section of society and media saturation may influence some jurors, this system still enables trial by one’s peers. This provides a fair and unbiased trial and also access to the legal system through the legal knowledge gained from being on a jury. Reforms could help improve the system’s effectiveness, but totally abolishing it unnecessary. Thus, despite its weaknesses, the jury system is still an effective system of trial.
to vote or who are not Australian citizens are also removed from this process. Given the statistics indicating that indigenous Australians are underrepresented on the electoral role, this is also another way in which society is not fully represented through jury service and hinders a fair and unbiased trial. A possible reform to the jury system that may enhance its effectiveness would be to reduce the number of challenges available and limit those who are ineligible. This would ensure a greater cross section of society is represented as even those with legal knowledge are eligible. However, this may hinder a fair and unbiased trial as those with legal knowledge may influence other jurors. The empanelment process also takes time, as opposed to just having a judge hear a case, seriously hindering the timely resolution of a dispute. A possible alternative to the jury system that would assist in providing a timely resolution of dispute and thus an effective legal system is to abolish the current system and replace it with a panel of judges. There would therefore be more than one opinion and one experience of a case, but it would be of legally trained and experienced individuals who need no direction or explanation. Although, this takes away from the fair and unbiased nature of trial by one’s peers. Further, it may be impossible for jurors to remain totally impartial and unbiased due to media coverage of some cases. Society is saturated by social media and news stories often relay details of serious cases. If jurors know of a case before this can seriously inhibit their ability to remain impartial. For example, in the Gable Tostee case of 2016, saturation of media coverage regarding the tinder date/death case meant that it may have been impossible to find a jury panel who knew nothing of the case. This seriously hinders the ability for a fair and unbiased trial. Even though the jury is often not a true cross section of society and media saturation may influence some jurors, this system still enables trial by one’s peers. This provides a fair and unbiased trial and also access to the legal system through the legal knowledge gained from being on a jury. Reforms could help improve the system’s effectiveness, but totally abolishing it unnecessary. Thus, despite its weaknesses, the jury system is still an effective system of trial.
unit_4_sac_2b_practice_sac.docx