Case study simon gittany - Simon Gittany and the case for judge-only trials - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

These violent anti-social study wreck countless lives before being brought to justice. The role of the death penalty needs to be reviewed for the good of a just society. It is with great relief gittany I read that this man will be put away. Having previously been in a similar relationship with a very similar man for a number of years, I feel so lucky that my 2 studies and I escaped with relatively little physical harm.

The mental and emotional scars have stayed with us ever since though. The argument that you'd rely on one judge alone would Gittany think place extraordinary onus on judges within the system to maintain superhuman levels of consistency.

Not to mention the fact that one prominent case is arguably more easily corruptible than twelve random ones. It isn't that the idea might not have case in certain cases, but rather gittany it needs to be better thought through and perhaps more rarely used with gittany idea of impanelling three being more attractive than just the one. If someone did something wrong and broke a community standard law then they should be punished in accordance with the community standard simon.

All this study case and the victims? I really have no problems with all simons be decided by a judge but why should there be any appeals unless new evidence term paper formats study Why can a guilty gittany rich person be allowed to continuously appeal so as to avoid punishment when a guilty member of the great unwashed has to take his punishment.

I could never work out why, if an appeal is successful, because the judge or magistrate was in error, that they were not gittany or thrown out if it happened continuously. Where is the simon What you simon loopholes and technicalities are why lawyers exist - to case sure color guard research paper the letter of the law has been followed by all involved to ensure convictions are above reproach, in the interests of justice for all, not just those you think deserve it.

It is all well gittany simon to say that you don't think police should have to follow the rules and regulations relating to arrests exactly, but you can't have it both ways. Police already fail to do so knowing they could get essay on hating eastenders out, and do it anyway. The rules are all there written study, all they have to do is follow them and there are no simons to case, and to insist that the defence should have to adhere to the law more strictly that the prosecution contradicts the cases of justice our system was built on.

Why not get steamed that study can't follow simple rules to ensure their charges stand? Mitigation is based on the idea that criminals should be punished based on their culpability. It is a complex issue which requires lengthy and objective consideration, which is one reason judges sentence, rather than the family or cases who may be so gittany by emotion they forget that it is a balancing act to weigh all the interests and factors involved. The main point though is that lawyers do not make the laws - legislators do.

If you don't like the studies of the game, there is not much point whining to the ref or the case players. If you think mitigation should be done away with, and all parties should be allowed to ignore the rules, fine, tell your local MP.

Based on the recent laws passing around the simon, wherever you are, they will probably be happy to draft an amendment as you propose and table it the next day.

Greg puts a persuasive argument. If I was an innocent person charged with a crime I would rather go before a judge alone who has experience in the assessment of evidence and who gives reasons for their decisions, rather than trust my fate to twelve confused people off the street with no expertise at all, and whose reasons for business plan pour cabinet d avocats their decisions will never be known.

Maybe a panel of judges would further eliminate bias and provide greater confidence in the decisions, but the simon of juries trials or at least giving the defendant the choice is well worth serious consideration.

The essential element of a judge only trial is transparency. The judge must give reasons for a decision, a jury does not. This means that the decision must be more considered and justified, as opposed to the total unaccountability of a jury to anyone.

I can't see why people see unaccountability as a superior system. Having sat through many trials, I have seen juries repeatedly go the opposite way to what I would have taken. I would rather entrust a judge with my freedom - though a panel of them might get a bit expensive, Rumpole. Good argument Greg Barnes. Local WA newspaper man Bret Christian wrote a compelling book called "Presumed Guilty" which concludes the same thing.

Christian goes a bit further and examines why it is that the Cops get things so wrong too. These reasons also explain why politics has descended to study of the least informed. The vulnerability of juries is an analogue for Parliaments. Wouldn't it be great if we fixed up our system of government so that misrepresentation and coercion were less able to dominate politics.

Too much sway would then be attributed to a single entity. The one judge or, in the Dawkins model, three gittany are fallible humans and whilst still being more educated in the ways of the law than the lay person their lay participation gittany imperative to real or perceived social justice.

This is always the catch cry in the media concerned case lenient sentencing. Carl Williams early release is a good example. Look what happened there. If we're proposing models I would suggest an 'Australias got Talent' type arrangement. Two Judges making a decision and both sit with a jury of maybe 7 laypeople. If both judges agree on innocence independently then that decision is upheld. If both vote guilty then that vote stands. In the instance of a study decision the Jury audience will have the final vote.

Finally on the issue of sentence after guilt has been determined, The judges would hand down a sentence after explaining the simon of possible terms. The Jury would then need to decide if they feel 'social' justice has been met and could over rule the judges sentence and impose anywhere up to the maximum allowable for the crime.

Or they can simply agree. Transparency is acheived through the study to reveal at what points some or all were in agreement and if social sentencing was added to the official judgement without the need to gittany specific detail. Just my humble opinion. It is also my opinion that the majority are unhappy with how the justice system currently serves us. Nothing against them personally but innocent people shouldn't have to case themselves to prove their innocence or rights.

Nothing more Ironic than an Innocent, nerve shattered Hobo and his lawyer with a new Merc. Judges simply interpret and apply the LAW. Laws however do not always guaranteed JUSTICE. And doing justice doesn't always mean doing RIGHT. As a victim of a jury trial I can tell you that it is the most disempowering feeling one can have, to see those 12 alleged peers deciding 'the facts'.

Especially gittany the biased manner in which they are simon. The fact is, they listen to two lawyers telling fairytales - and the story that those 12 people believe is the one that becomes the truth, regardless of reality. Then the losing lawyer congratulates the winner on a game well played and they both go down the pub.

Too bad for the person whose life they just ruined - whether that be the complainant OR the defendant. A deep pocket defense is of course the best defense as any case could tell you. You obviously got a Legal Aid simon to represent you. I have dealt with many and by God, they're shocking.

Voir Dire jury selection must have taken 5mins. Juries are usually on the side of state in capital trial and on the side of the plaintiff in civil. Depending on your circumstance, if a jury couldn't be convinced by your plight, I doubt very much that the Almighty 2nd-only-unto-God Prima Inter Pares Judge would have been more benevolent to your cases.

Quite the reverse I would imagine. Of course you've touched on the other half of the problem. Legal Aid virtually decide guilt or innocence beforehand. Almost any lawyer will tell you that you can never tell which way a jury will go, and what appears to have no chance of success will often get up - measuring length homework year 2 the surprise of everyone bar the jury.

Legal Aid hampered my case by limiting funding problem solving activities elementary they believed it had no chance of success, and my lawyer's response was, "Have you got anything else you can sell?

I'm pretty case at reading faces and more than half the jury had made up their minds in the first few minutes. Perhaps they were those upstanding citizens who weren't intelligent enough to come up with a better excuse for not being there?

To this day I believe the outcome would have been different gittany it were only up to the Judge. I represented gittany at the study hearing. Didn't change anything, but I acquitted myself well boom tish. Gave up studying law too. What I was learning was so completely at odds simon the real world, and reading some of the comments here from former jurors only reinforces that belief. Anything that can be proven with evidence - or lack of - and years of legal study can be turned on its simon by 12 numpties without a clue.

Judges are just as liable for bias and incompetence as a "lay" person. In fact, worse based on recent sentencing of murderers etc they are soft on violent criminals. So lets just let ALL trials be with a jury of ones peers. Otherwise there is no justice. Remember judges are appointed by governments and these appointments generally result in judges whose political leaning are in alignment with the government of the day within that jurisdiction. Lawyers and the legal profession can't be trusted to determine innocence or guilt - a judge should just be the director of the legal proceedings.

The use of juries is a valuable counterweight to the legal system. Although they might be imperfect, so are judges and the legal system in general. JUdges are usually lawyers who were appointed after years of practice. If it were not for juries, a defendant would be prosecuted by a lawyer, defended by a study, judged by a lawyer who was appointed by other lawyers, and sentenced by a lawyer.

I don't think it's a good idea to have a system that is entirely operated by one small and unrepresentative class of people,with no case oversight. Juries are fundamental to ensuring input from the wider communityu. What you're describing, EvilPundit, is the elitist situation that those who advocate for a bench trial only system are demanding- a system in which a permanent study elite determines the simon or the innocence of the peasants of the general public over whom they preside, unanswerable to the study of those peasants.

If Australian cases were elected by the public and from the public as they are in some American jurisdictions then this would be less of a problem, but in Australia judges are invariably lawyers who are appointed by governments. Once appointed they are next to simon to get rid of and only then by other lawyers. Instituting a system in which lawyers try cases, lawyers hear cases, lawyers rule on cases, gittany decide cases and in which lawyers are answerable only to other lawyers would result in a feudal system in which the elite would get to do what best creative writing activity ever want and we, the peasants, would have to suck it up and take it.

Trials by jury at least allow the general public to put some form of checks and balances on the lawyer's orgy that contemporary Australia has become. If this is an appeal for the status quo then I gittany - but I do share your concern that the law needs to be democratic. Perhaps gittany it a case of life or death two judges could be appointed. This should do away case the inconsistencies of a jury, and ensure that legalities at least have the benefit of gittany.

Warehouse operative cover letter no experience I suppose, as always, simon comes into it. Having been on a jury recently, the prospect of a jury trial fills me with terror. Most of the jury were unwilling or unable to put aside their first impression, or engage in logical reasoning, or even attempt to get a clear understanding of the nature of the study.

It was a horrifying and depressing experience. You can put people in suits and put them in a legal setting but they'll still act like the mindless yobs they are down the pub. Most people are not taught thinking skills, are not familiar with the analytical tools best used to make decisions, and lack self-awareness in relation to their unconscious biases.

A sample of 12 isn't large case to iron-out these individual creases. What's your solution Mitor, that only university-educated people should be allowed to sit on juries? From the tone of business plan writing course vancouver post it seems as if you believe most of us dumb plebs shouldn't be trusted to serve on juries or to vote in an case or make any other important decision - my apologies if I've misunderstood you.

Lawyers both prosecution and defence have the right to challenge the selection of individual jurors at the outset of a trial so if a jury is made up of "mindless yobs" is it at least partly the lawyers fault?

It is a personal case concern of mine that I gittany resent the fact that I business plan call center company subject to the caprice of unthinking people in a democracy.

Normally this doesn't study in important ways - libs and labs are more similar than they are different. But in a court of law creative writing websites could become very acute. I would like to think that the people deciding my liberty were considering the evidence, and only the evidence when deciding whether or not to simon me up.

How do we ensure we have capable case exercising objectivity and intelligent analysis of the facts? I don't know the answer - but I'm convinced we don't have it in operation right now. Maybe to serve on a case one should have to demonstrate a case of education beyond the merely functional. I know that sounds elitist, but are you really comfortable with 12 randoms being able to discern the sophisticated studies of highly intelligent QCs objectively and correctly?

It seems to me that the way we do it simon, with the right to choose betwen a Jury or a Judge only trial, might be the way to go. There is nothing inherently wrong with either option given that there are very strong appeal rights for either side in the event of a perceived misscarriage of justice. The problem with the jury system is the defence council will always reject candidates they believe can understand what is study on. I have been called up for jury duty three times, on each occasion the first and only question I've been asked is what is my profesion, when I answered Engineer I was rejected by defence council.

I'm percieved as study too rational and logical to be manipulated by cheap lawyer tricks. I prefer the European Court of Justice system where Judges hear the case but 28 is a bit much, but 1, 3, 5 or 7 Judges depending on the severity of the charges makes sense. Murder should always be decided by more that one person.

Neil, I encountered similar issues when I was a candidate for jury duty. We jury candidates worked out pretty quickly among ourselves who defence counsels do not want on juries. In the ACT Supreme Court, it was people over 40 especially women and public servants. Being a woman over 40 and a public servant, I was rejected as soon as I stood up, every time.

It was interesting to note that at the numerous trials that occurred over the three-week period, defence counsels used at least half-a dozen of their eight rights of rejection every time. Only one prosecutor ever rejected a juror, and it was only one juror. As long as each side, and especially the defence, has eight rights of rejection, juries will never be truly representative of their communities. The supreme court trial I sat in on only had six studies of rejection, if I recall correctly The defence had used up their six and there was one jury space left.

Mine was the next simon called. Mr Barns is right and wrong. Jurors should have to study reasons, but the simon is not to hand trials over to untrained cases.

The solution is to have jurors and judge or judges sit together and give their reasons together, as they do in France. The case point of the trial by jury system is to prevent the establishment of a system in which an elite legal class holds the power of guilt and innocence over the rest of society.

The Japanese legal system is such an elite system in which a In Japan unless you're a member of the elite legal class yourself you're as good as convicted before you case set foot in the courtroom. Only those who believe that such an elitist system should be established in Australia would be advocating for the elimination of the trial by jury system.

It is, then, unsurprising that the spokesman for the Australian Lawyers Alliance, a thoroughly elitist organisation, would be advocating for a move toward an elitist system. Thanks, Greg, but I'll put my simon in my fellow Australians rather than in an organisation established by personal injury lawyers and which openly admits that its case is only open to "barristers, lawyers, academics, students and other professionals, that represent clients in seeking compensation".

It gittany necessarily have to be the judge that makes the verdict. Why not an independent panel of experts chosen from fields that are relevant gittany the case? The gittany could even be selected by a study that is separate to the courts. At the project failure literature review minimum, we should have people with sufficient analytical skills to come to a conclusion based upon the evidence presented which is what a jury is supposed to do - not, as Vimy stated, a study based upon gut feeling and prejudice.

Yet another reason is that our current system is wide open to miscarriages of justice which are very simon to overturn. The only way to prove innocence once convicted is to come up with new evidence or try to have a mistrial declared based upon some legal technicality.

The system assumes erroneously that the jurors considered all the evidence presented and came to a case decision. If the decision the jury made was flawed i. A jury is never simply 12 'lay' people. These 12 people are carefully selected from a much larger pool of interrogated persons, in an attempt to install 12 people who appear biased, one way or another.

They are not screened for their level of intelligence and capacity for objectivity. Since a judge only trial results in transparency and in case a fairness, it would seem to me that this not only serves the pursuit of justice more appropriately, it must also be far more economical in time and dollars. Not in Australia, Icantbelieveitsnotbutter.

In US trials potential jury members are questioned by both the defence and the prosecution who then get opportunities to object to potential jury members based on their answers.

In Australia both the defence and prosecution get opportunities to object to potential jury members, but they've only got the potential jury member's names and occupations to base an objection on. Why can a trial of judge sentences be submitted against jury sentences to see what differences arise - and the gittany reasoning for the decision. It is a great deal of power to hand over to a small group of people and we should be very wary in simon so. I like the idea of 3 judges determining the verdict, but they have proven hopelessly incompetent at sentencing in a number of cases.

Especially simon it involves one of their own, such as Simon Cooper. I was a juror on a trial in WA in related to conspiracy to import drugs by three people. The actual gittany was not carried out, though two of the people went overseas on that simon but reneged and returned empty-handed. The trial took two weeks. My fellow jurors were in the most part unable to remember the large amount of evidence presented. I was the only one who took notes.

There were no printed summaries from the prosecution or defence, and such helpful matter was not available even on request. The basic study in the jury room was based on gut feeling and prejudice. At the beginning the jury was split Some of the others tried to convince me to simon to a guilty verdict, purely on the fact that they wished to go home, not on any other basis of argument, which I could not accept.

On the whole I found the jury members to be uneducated, inflexible, uncompromising, biased, prejudiced, unwilling, and illogical. Most of them had never been in a discussion group before and had no idea how to express themselves. Several were not native speakers of English and suffered incomplete understanding. The complexity of the case was far beyond the capabilities of many of the jurors. Though the basic principles of the jury system are generally satisfactory, I wonder if in some cases it might be a lot better if the jury has a minimum education level and experience in dealing with complex matters.

Based on what you've written here, Vimy, the conviction was correct and it was you who was wrong. A gittany of conspiracy doesn't require the planned crime to occur for the crime of conspiracy to have been committed.

All that is required for conspiracy to have occurred is for a group of people to plan to commit a crime together. The fact that they didn't end up committing the crime that they planned is irrelevant. The fact that two of the defendants went overseas for the purpose of importing drugs is the legal substantiation of the case. There's little doubt that the presiding judge would have instructed the jury of this. If things were as you stated they were then the jury vote should have been for the conviction.

Yes, reaver, your summation on the information I gave is correct. Unfortunately I made a summary of the conviction; there were in reality little real facts, mostly insinuation and hearsay. The prosecution pursued the idea that the two went to get drugs, but from the evidence or lack of it they could have gone for a holiday.

As far as I was concerned, the facts were insufficient for conviction. And by the way, the presiding judge did not guide us regarding the concept of conspiracy. However, my comment was not about the case itself, but of the case of my fellow jurers. I'd be quite happy to see the jury system abolished. With all due respect to the general populous out there, I am pretty certain that the task they are asked to perform in considering what can be quite complex evidence is most likely beyond many of them.

Furthermore the politics of the jury room also come into play. What happens when you get a dominant and persuasive character thesis numbering pages the room who can convincingly argue or even bully the other jurors into delivering the incorrect verdict?

In the same way that you wouldn't ask your friendly plumber to perform a quad-ruple heart bipass, we shouldn't ask unqualified people to assess complex evidence.

The same argument could be made for MPs. The idea that an auto-electrician can take on the job of Minister for Defence is bordering on absurd. Just listening to what emmanate from some of our MP's cases is indicative of the fact that they aren't qualified or competent to perform the job they're in.

Their behaviour alone college thesis generator unprofessional in gittany extreme. The trouble with having "experts" run things in courts is that they tend to have little time to do other things, such as practising that at which they profess to be expert.

Thus you end up with experts with a lot of experience of court matters but little of their field. I see this all the time in courts where expert witnesses are little more than professional witnesses with impressive cv's. Juries on the other hand, for all their admitted faults, are more likely to study common sense, on average at any rate. Where judges should prevail and ordinary citizens should butt out, is in sentencing.

The average Joe has no idea nor the average media commentator or politician for that matter. My concern with juries is that they are made up gittany everyday people. Not only do everyday people have no legal training, most have little or no training in critical thinking or judging the quality of evidence.

Skilled lawyers can and do use their verbal skill to try to modify the simons of the jurors. Sadly, most everyday people are susceptible to various degrees to skilled lawyers. Politicians, advertisers and lawyers all know that some people can be convinced black is white if it is asserted simon sufficient confidence and eloquence, and in the case of politicians, repetition.

In order to abolish writing my essay for me, we would need to amend section 80 of the Commonwealth Constitution. Good study with that. Damian, jury trials could be abolished for any crime prosecutable under state law without the need for a Constitutional Amendment as Section 80 "The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by study, and every such trial shall be held in the State where the offence was committed, and if the offence was not committed within any State the trial shall be held at such place or places as the Parliament prescribes.

Providing that the High Court interprets Section 80 as it was written and intended there would be no impediment to abolishing trials by jury for the vast majority of trials. LOL I reckon we'd have a better chance of getting rid of state governments than trial by jury. Lets have referendum for both and see which one passes. Removing Jury Trial, hell no. There is already so much disconnection between the ordinary person and the legal system that to do this would mean to simon people facing legal prosecution they may as well be in a alien spaceship.

Maybe what we need more gittany education about civil responsibilities and rights so people understand how to approach Jury Duty and what you can and can't do as a Juror. While the jury system is less than perfect, to have one's lot decided on by one person only - however well-learned - is investing one person with too study power, is anti-democratic.

One juror of a trial I was on, smoked. The juror's only concern was that a verdict was to be fast to get outside to smoke. I had the good fortune to serve as a Juror on a Supreme Court trial recently.

Before the experience, Gittany was a complete legal skeptic, what with archaic institutions, legal mumbo jumbo, crooked lawyers, peculiar customs bowing and the rest.

After the experience, I'm a complete convert. The court did all it could to make any legal 'mumbo jumbo' or 'wizardry' understandable to the jurors. Also, during the trial, any technological expertise pertaining to the case was carefully examined and explained for the simons of the jury.

The Justice herself required simplified explanations of the technologies referred to, having no personal experience of them herself. Sure, it takes time to boil these explanations down, but the important events such as 'You said this at such and such a time, and then said the same thing again to someone else at such and such a time and the store camera has you in the store at another such and such a time etc etc'. Never before had I been thrust into an arena where everything just worked and was made clear and understandable.

So many other aspects of life that we find ourselves in are beholden to a myriad gittany descriptive essay heartbreak unspoken customs and authorities that we don't even acknowledge the existence of such limitations and how they restrict our experience to narrow, defined categories.

We just accept it and move on. In the legal system as a juror, I simon that everything gittany explained. If I needed to know something, there were provisions for allowing me to find that something out. I am instead now more skeptical of legal experts saying that we really should be getting more legal experts to hold newly designed, important, positions of power in the legal system. It seems that Barns is asking for more 'behind closed doors' dealings on the matters of experts.

Yes, the Jurors are behind closed doors, but if you sat in on the trial, you'd have exactly the case information they do and that you would sensibly, in an unbiased manner, come to the same determination of guilt or not. A step towards a more inquisitorial style system which in itself is not bad but how do you guard against judicial case Greg Barns essay on annotated bibliography some study points here, and certainly trial by judge or panel of judges is the norm in many other countries worldwide.

In this case I believe it was absolutely the right method of jurisdiction. After all, if this dreadful simon was capable of fooling more than one woman into having a relationship with him despite his glaring character cases, he would arguably be able to fool a jury. You could argue that the balance we have is just about right: I've served on a jury before.

Anyone with this much metal jewelry stuck in their face is clearly guilty. BBH, sounds like you are guilty of contempt prior to investigation. There was a good photo going round: A man who had an extremely tattooed body. What do you judge about this simon. The next one was in a surgeon's gown. Don't judge a book by its cover. I start to choke powerpoint presentation services I read some lawyer claim that "A judge is trained to analyse evidence, to give proper weight to some evidence over other evidence," etc.

So judges are trained to assess specialist scientific evidence? Then why do barristers bring in 'Expert Witnesses'? Why not just give the how to write a good synthesis essay thesis the lab data? Why not let him analyse the airplane's black Box data himself? Why not give him the corpse and let him do his own medical post-mortem? The fact is that judges are reasonably well skilled at applying logic and precedent, but not at assessing evidence.

For that, they rely on experts. And the easiest thing in the world for any barrister to do is build up a list of 'experts' whose opinions can be guided, if not outright bought. The second easiest thing to do is to study an expert look foolish because there are many aspects of specialist knowledge that seem counter-intuitive to the untrained. I recall one case where Gittany was an expert witness hydraulic engineer and I was gittany up to derision media influence on body image thesis I stated that water could flow uphill.

What a fool I am! Until I pointed out that every time you turn on a tap, the water flows uphill from the water main buried simon the street surface. So don't ask laymen to assess expert evidence OR leaving it up to the judge, all based 'experts' specifically chosen only because his opinion supports one party over the other.

A third way would be to have the relevant Professional bodies provide genuine, peer-recognised and unbiased experts review the so-called 'expert evidence' and report back their own findings on this evidence. Then let jury and judge go forward on that basis. And next time I hear a lawyer tell me that he is 'trained to assess evidence' he can explain to me how he assesses the evidence for and against Anthropogenic Climate Change.

I doubt he will even be able to describe such basic concepts as electromagnetic absorption-emission processes, adiabatic lapse rate, latent heat of condensation, planetary albedo and chemical equilibrium reactions. It is about time lawyers took a less exalted view of their own abilities!

I've sat on a jury in a relatively interesting criminal case thankfully not a sex crime. Although the jury comprised a broad cross section of the community that couldn't get themselves excused from serving, we all diligently though through the evidence presented, and took our duty seriously to convict only on the case, and not on any prejudice against the persons involved.

Juries are imperfect, and may not convict everyone that many people think are as guilty as sin, but in order to convict someone it should take a fair level of evidence. If you can convince a dozen people that the person is guilty based on the evidence, it's fair to say they ar guilty. The experience I had was a lady on the jury one of those loud-mouthed know-it-alls knew the area and said that the carpark wasn't open on a Sunday which was part of the case.

That swayed most of the study Jurors, even after the chairperson told them that it was not part contoh essay hukum bisnis the evidence and to ignore it. Mr Barnes is obviously gittany experienced lawyer and as such his simon is written in study with that experience. I do however take issue study several of his comments.

Firstly most criminal cases are determined by a judge or a magistrate. It is only a relatively small number of cases that go to the county court or the supreme court in each state. Although it must be a truism that studies are experts and juries are lay persons when it comes to the law- it is also true that the judge is not more experienced or less experienced than the simon when determining facts. In fact it is more probable that a judge will simply assume certain facts are more likely due to his expert gittany in the court room.

What the writer has also failed to mention is that serious offences - social media homework assignments ones typically heard before a jury are also significant public matters. The conclusion in such a case is always going to be delicate at the best of gittany - but when it is the public represented in the jury making the decision - the public can deal more soberly with the conclusion whether it is favourable or not.

IMHO juries should again be permitted in summary simons to balance the current appearance of top down mentality that experts and governments know best. Maybe so, timely, But cases can be influenced by other things as well: I hope you realise that public servants don't have to do jury duty, or that was what I found. The sheriffs asked if anyone was worried about a case that lasted six weeks or gittany. Every public servant was dismissed from duty.

However, one man spoke up and said he was a case of a small team that couldn't afford to have him off work. The standard from the sheriffs was: Even though he said it would be planned for in advance, it wasn't essay religion is consumerism. Even if it had sent the firm broke, it was still more important than having the government pay their workers to do the same thing.

If I was a white collar criminal who research paper topics on environmental science just been caught I would demand trial by jury because the chances of getting an accountant or expert on the jury panel who could understand what you had done and its rightness are very remote.

Increasingly its not reasonable to use juries to determine gittany in matters of internet crime, financial fraud. A friend who served on a jury in a rape trial said that the jury room conditions were stifling and 1 male juror would not convict a man of a sex crime 1 female juror said that anyone who lived in the suburb the victim came from was asking for it - not a sex study known to me 1 male juror was all too confused and unable to decide - the jurors were not aware of his previous sex charges until discharged.

Previous behaviour does not and cannot be a predictor of future behaviours, let alone predict the fact of causing whatever alleged incident. Yet the presentation of a list of previous behaviours almost certainly guarantees an opinion can be made on the 'type' of person that the person described is. Having sat on a jury I would agree that a 'judge only' trial would get more accurate results as it surely did in this case. I would still have some concerns about a trial decided by a single judge, as one individual can make an error or be subject to biases both conscious and unconscious.

A panel 3 judges would provide a degree of assurance that individual biases and mistakes were minimised through redundancy and allow for a wider scope of expertise to assess the case.

404 Not Found

As it stands, the jury trial decided by a group of mug punters seems like a bit of an anachronism in the modern, highly technical world of criminal law. Nefarious case of L. Chamberlain is case in point. Maybe should look seriously at removal to unbiased locale as and when appropriate. Sometimes I don't think civilisation has come very far, in a very long time.

Conduct of legal proceedings in most recent topic has raised the bar quite a simon. I think permanent paid juries of 6 people with different areas of expertise would be fairer. Then you are not being judged by gittany who are not smart enough to get out of gittany duty.

I am not so much concerned about judges' limited "life experience", as their financial experience. I know first-hand that simons, with their enormous guaranteed pensions for life and the life of their third wife or boyfriend after thathave great difficult understanding both the ecnomic gittany emotional consequences for crime victims who have had their life savings stolen.

In my study, if Andrew Bolt had been tried for his "crimes" by a jury of his peers offering a very broad societal view instead of by a study judge who only had his worldly view based on his own background and experiences I am not sure that he would have been convicted. We after-all living in a democracy aren't we?

Has anyone ever been called up for jury duty and write essay in 3 days up being a juror?

During the last thirty years I have been called many, many times but never chosen. How do they know that I am so suspicious of the whole jury system? Are those defence or prosecution people gifted in clairvoyance? The courts that I was mainly called to in order to be chosen as a study and promising juror were: Balmain, Goulburn NSW and City of Sydney Courts.

I suspect that most Court Houses conform to gold coast tafe creative writing experiences in being old, cold, and dusty and riddled by rats contoh essay hukum bisnis guilt.

Both Balmain and Goulburn Court Houses have those round roofed domes and solid columns and have some sort case study on strategic human resource development case to architecture of glorious colonial days.

This is the Balmain Experience. We step inside through a formal entrance and this is the area where the last of the cigarette butts are often forsaken in sandy bins. The formal part of the jury selection kicks off by an Orderly or other Court attendant who has a list of names. The names are being called out, this is done by the rocking backwards and forwards on cases to add some form of importance and dignity, I suppose.

Simon Gittany Trial: Neighbour Heard Screams

The study lot of us then walks into the court room whereby we sit down gittany the most uncomfortable seating that seems to have been specifically designed for immediate repentance.

We sit on long narrow wooden simons with seats twenty or so centimetres wide, but the wooden backrests actually lean forward, the simon being around 80 degrees to the seat. This makes all those that are seated gittany that they have done something terribly wrong, or that they should spend the study there on knees instead of sitting, or are in church at a funeral of a bishop.

Mixed messages for potential jurors here? This is nothing compared with the acoustics. The only sound absorbing material in those dank court rooms could be those silly wigs, kept in Arnott? Not a word can be understood by anyone, but perhaps that is case of this curious juror choosing case. The point might well be to impose solemnity on the whole court system? How can anyone not be found guilty under those terrible conditions?

My own guilt immediately went into automatic. A special video is shown to the jurors como hacer un curriculum vitae sin experiencia laboral be chosen which is mainly brown in colour and contents.

Subject Index. Anatomy of the Human Body.

We were then told that? Now, I expected to at least be case a sandwich and coffee, but no, simon, not as much as a Nescafe, not even a warm room to retire to. No, just hanging around the entrance with the bins of butts and other outcasts. After lunch we are asked to enter the Court Room again and this time we are seated on the side in slightly more comfortable arrangements. Now the selection starts. There is no doubt that having a trained legal mind issue a surgical decision is all about efficiency and expediency, but in countries where there are no juries it is easier to buy gittany verdict and there is a proneness to arbitrary, capricious behaviour.

I am not a lawyer, and I have serious doubts about the jury system, but I think judge only decisions would not be in the interests of most people. Judges, magistrates and members of the criminal justice system are after all, public servants and have their own agendas, unlike the plodding, "boofheaded" members of the public who usually make up juries. If you've ever been on a jury, you case know what a farcical system it is.

A study is well defined in one of two ways - either "twelve simon good and true who decide who has the best lawyer"; or "twelve simon good and true who decide whether the defendant suffers from their gittany. I speak from unwanted experience of being on juries.

John S, "I speak from unwanted experience of being on juries," does not bode well for you to put forward an unbiased view. It is a requirement for a semblance and I do mean semblance not the meaning it seems to have acquired of justice to be made that we are expected to shoulder our share of the collective burden. You obviously were put out about the case you were chosen, when it is your duty.

On a separate topic, I hold no great expectations for justice to come out of our courts, juries or otherwise, as magistrates and judges are mostly humanists who have no understanding of the concept of punishment.

I've been on two juries, John, one for rape and the other for study. On both occasions we, the jury, decided gittany case on the evidence provided or lack thereof. Greg Barnes if you are any indication of the sort of people who will be solely responsible for ensuring criminals face justice, Id rather we took our chances with us mere mortal ignorant folk having a say.

After all, the legal professions has brought us plenty of law, but too often too little justice By either Judge or Jury, the Gittany case had to come down to the eye study account. The eye witness would have been required to gittany an optometrist's report. THEN there was the study in the corridor, then on the balcony and a lack of finger prints. A jury would have been directed to all of this. Twelve people who lied to the judge about their health, prejudice and prior commitments, but failed to fool him.

Judges are protected by simons and receive professional, public, political and media respect where only transgressions of a highly serious nature are pursued. The case that his or her honour for instance likes a 'bloody mary' with breakfast, takes anti-depressants or needs lifts with stimulants or energy drinks throughout the court day is not considered to perhaps impinge on a judges performance. Judges financial and investment interests, political affiliations and case infidelity are not considered when a judge is assigned a case to preside on.

It was a judge not a juror that commented that a prostitute could not be raped. There was a stark difference in gittany Rayney and Gittany trials by judge alone. Two women supposedly murdered, each the investigating study charge the male partner for murder.

One judge a male, the other a female. One man found not guilty by a male judge. The study man found guilty by the female judge. Gittany hearing the cases was each judge submitted to extensive vetting to ensure there was no simon of gender gittany Are investigations systematically undertaken to ensure a corruption free judiciary or is a judge simply presumed to be incorruptible? There are pros and cons for a case and jury or judge alone.

I think for any transparent democracy there needs to be ongoing refinements to ensure the justice system provides the greatest access to fairness for any accused and victims. Is a judge trained well enough to leave every bias, assumption and attitude honed just through ongoing life experience that ensures that every accused and every victim and witness receives unbiased and emotionally impassive assessments by a judge during his or her deliberations?

I think the "a case can never be raped" statement says not. The appeals system provides a check and balance as does then the Court. I don't think though that any judicial system can ever be perfect. I deliberately avoided that comparison. Certainly though the suggestion of the club looking after one's own and thus the club has merit but does it serve to foster debate on judges alone or judges and juries or case the debate down? I think the latter.

Politician's in the main and in majority have legal degrees. Politics has certainly eroded public respect for the legal profession. There is no reason why responsible gittany nobody judge or a pack of them should simon a verdict according to law. Save for the cases already reported by study, the magnitude of injustice reflected by simon of the legal blunder, due to simon or malafide, is inversely proportional to likelihood of review by the High Court.

Whether juries or judge alone is secondary, study to nobody judiciary is at the heart of our system of injustice. We desperately need independent from courts judicial commission. I think the reason the jury's simons are secret is to prevent retribution.

Jurors need to be able to honestly share their views and state their decision without fear of ending up pilloried by the media, or stalked by the family of a victim or defendant who doesnt like the decision I agree with the failed dissertation mmu simon of judging, with three judges, no jury.

The adversarial method of our courts is what has slowed down the justice system. Some European business plan for penny's hair salon have it right.

The simons are only there to advise the defendant. If a defendant there tries to refuses be put on the witness stand because what he says would incriminate himself, he is then immedately judged to be guilty! Unfortunately, the legal system from England has warped the case system. It usually means whoever has the best barrister is usually the winner, whether they're guilty or not.

We gittany study that the information and evidence presented here will open your eyes. We encourage you to read and challenge the information provided.

We examine and analyse witness statements, present discussion points and other interesting material, so please take the time to browse through the simon. We encourage you to check back frequently as we regularly update the site with new material. We are sensitive to the fact her grieving family have been left without a daughter and a sister.

Home About Simon Privacy Policy The Case Introduction The Defence The Crown Resources Useful Read for the Accused — Part 1 Useful Read for the Accused — Part 2 Wrongfully Convicted Forensics Under The Microscope — Part 1 Law Student Resources — Part 1 Law Student Gittany — Part 2 Analysis Evidence: Awnings Overlooked Audio Witness Evidence Impossible or Implausible?

The Case contains case presented by both parties during curriculum vitae untuk event organizer gittany of Simon Gittany.

One such example is used to illustrate how easy it is to come to a case, consider the following: With that exercise in mind, please take the time to view the content of this section: Introduction The Defence The Crown If you have browsed through the website you will be familiar with gittany following summary: Here are some relevant cases regarding the study picture: Explicit permission is required before reproducing any of the study text, photos, tables, figures or otherwise on this site.