Essay About Criminal Trial Process Balance And Rights Of Victims

To What Extent Does the Criminal Trial Process Balance the Rights of Victims, offenders and Society?Essay Preview: To What Extent Does the Criminal Trial Process Balance the Rights of Victims, offenders and Society?1 rating(s)Report this essayTo what extent does the criminal trial process balance the rights of victims, offenders and society?Juries, Defences, Charge Negotiation.Juries:
L: Jury Act 1977 (NSW)
C: R v Wood (Used as negative)
M: 
D: BOCSAR 2008 – Only 55% of jurors understand what beyond reasonable doubt means
I: ICCPR 14

Charge Negotiation:L: DPP Guidelines 2007
C: Nannette May (as a negative)
M: “Victims ignored in plea deals” (SMH, 2009) (Case)
D: Negotiating with the DPP Nick Cowdery
I: ICCPR

Despite some flaws, the Criminal Trial Process balances the rights of victims, offenders and society to a moderate extent, as it upholds the Rule of law, follows International Law obligations, and moderately achieves a fair balance. Rights of victims and offenders may include protection of privacy and fair trial, however, society values harsher punishment and protection, causing a conflict of needs. Despite this, Criminal Trial Process aspects of Juries, Defences and Charge Negotiation have been moderately effective in creating a balance.

Juries, as legislated under the Jury Act 1977 (NSW), moderately achieve a fair balance between the rights of victims, offenders and society through the use of community involvement, and the right to a fair trial. Firstly, the use of twelve randomly chosen jurors likely represents community views and values in a way that a single judge cannot provide, fulfilling the societal interest of involvement. Furthermore, the use of Juries as a central aspect of the Adversarial system of trial fulfils Article 14 of the ICCPR, stating “everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” In addition, as quoted by Nick Cowdery “ Juries perform a valuable role in connecting the community with criminal justice and in bringing into the process the community values and standards”.

The Commonwealth of Australia currently offers its service and support to the public in the following way:

· A service and support arrangement for the Commonwealth and other jurisdictions. • A “fair and public” consultation process. • A public discussion forum

Answering the most pressing public questions in the Australian Humanist Society’s Annual Consultation series, we present on the matter in detail the Commonwealth’s efforts towards the Equality Law, the Community for Human Rights, the Development of the Human Right, the Treatment of Women, the Equal Opportunity and Equal Justice System, and the Access to Human Rights (EITr); we will also discuss:

The importance of the legal system; The rights of individuals;

The legal, administrative, and criminal elements of this system; The legal systems of the Commonwealth;

The public interest in this system; The right of individuals to fair trial; and

The impact of this system on the legal system.

The Commonwealth is aware of a number of concerns which have been raised in recent years, including the use of the trial process, trial delays, and the unfair trial law of Australia. While this has not always been the focus of these concerns, the Commonwealth has been focused on improving the legal system and promoting equitable, public and peaceful participation through trials. In addition, in order to ensure that these issues are addressed effectively, the Commonwealth is committing to ensuring a fair trial process.

During the past decade, legal scholars have repeatedly sought the Commonwealth to address legal and legal complex issues that affect Australians. These include the lack of representation for minority communities due to the limited representation of Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander and Torres Strait Islander women; the lack of equal treatment in the criminal justice system (particularly in rape and murder); and the discrimination of women in the criminal justice system (including the treatment of Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander, and Torres Strait Islander women, who comprise over 95% of the general population in Australia).

Despite the Commonwealth’s continued efforts to address these issues, there are ongoing issues regarding Australian human rights law. Although the Commonwealth does not always fully understand and fully share the views of its law community, some of its legal professionals do. In the case of this Inquiry, the Australian Civil Liberties Union, the Human Rights Commission of Australia and Human Rights Watch are among organisations which have come forward to provide evidence and advocacy on the human rights of Aboriginal women and children. For example, the Human Rights Commission of Australia’s Report on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women (HRCWT) offers an overview of Aboriginal child sexual exploitation.

In March 2013, the Human Rights Commission reported that:

“In almost 70 per cent of cases, the perpetrators of sexual exploitation, of which at least one has experienced sexual exploitation before, are women and children of people of Aboriginal origin, although women are more likely than men to experience the same level of abuse”.

This Commission has called for an examination of the legal approach to criminal justice in Australia and for the abolition of an early sentencing system. The Human Rights Commission has also sought evidence on the role and impact of the sentencing system on Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander, Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander children and young women, and on the impacts this system has had on Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander women, and women’s rights.

Despite this moderate success, thematic and practical issues have arisen in relation to areas of bias and understanding. Firstly, as found in a 2008 BOCSAR Study, only 55% of jurors understood what ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ means, and only 67% of jurors understood anything the Judge said. Due the lack of understanding by the jury, the result has been that the right to a fair trial has been impeded on, and an unfair decision may be given. Furthermore, bias may occur during the trial in the form of social media, or as proven in R v Wood, jurors may attend the crime scene, basing their decision off their own research rather than evidence given in court. In addition, the rule of majority verdict in 2006 introduced the 11-1 rule, allowing one ‘rogue juror’ to disagree with the majority decision. While this is cost effective to society, it considerably impedes upon the individual right to a fair trial, as by one person disagreeing, there must be some reasonable doubt.

Furthermore, Defences are an aspect of the Criminal Trial Process of which have been moderately effective in balancing the rights of the victim, offender and society, by allowing the offender to provide a reason as to why they committed a crime. The use of defences has been successful in upholding ICCPR Article 17(3)(d), which states “to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing”. Furthermore, Defences may be partial, reducing a murder charge to manslaughter, or complete, completely acquitting a charge. Complete defences include Self defence, Mental Illness, Autonomy, Consent, Duress, Accident and Necessity. In specific, the defence of Self defence is a complete defence of which moderately balances the rights of the victim, offender and society. Legislated under Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Section 418, Self Defence allows the defendant to use reasonable force to protect themselves from an intruder, as highlighted in R v McInnes. Furthermore Self defence fulfils ICCPR Article 17, By allowing the offender to protect themself from an unlawful attack

However, the defence of