Introduction
Trial by jury is a legal procedure utilized in criminal and civil cases. A group of individuals is selected to form a jury, which listens to evidence and facts presented on both sides of the case before making a final decision. A trial by jury can occur in a criminal case, where the prosecution argues that the defendant committed a crime and the defense presents evidence to prove their innocence.
Trial by jury should be maintained because it benefits society. A jury trial offers justice by allowing a judge to review the evidence presented and render a decision based on the facts of the case. This may help ensure a fair and unbiased decision, protecting the defendant’s rights rather than relying on trial by imprisonment, which can lead to incarceration without a fair trial and result in injustice and human rights violations. Nevertheless, in some instances, trial by jury did not work fairly, as seen in the Gordon Wood case, due to corruption that can be improved in several ways. Trial by jury should be retained because it promotes fair judgment, but since it is susceptible to corruption, some improvements can be made to ensure it functions efficiently and effectively.
Trial by Jury Cases and Retention
Trial by jury is a fundamental aspect of Australian criminal law, allowing defendants to have their charges heard by a panel of their peers. This process has been in place for centuries and is considered a vital safeguard against injustice. However, its current use within the Australian criminal justice system has been subject to much debate.
Some argue that juries are swayed by emotion, media coverage, or prejudices, leading to irrational verdicts. Others suggest that the process can be slow, expensive, and pressure jurors themselves. Despite these concerns, trial by jury remains a central feature of the Australian legal system.
An example of this is the recent trial of Cardinal George Pell, who faced allegations of child sex abuse(Gleeson, 2020). The case was widely publicized, and the verdict caused great controversy. The jury’s decision to find Pell guilty underscored the power and importance of the trial by jury process as a vital component of the justice system.
Trial by jury should be retained since it has been a cornerstone of the Australian criminal justice system. It remains a vital tool to protect against potential biases, promote transparency and public confidence, and ensure that all individuals receive a fair and impartial trial. One case instance that demonstrates a trial jury to be a protection against potential biases is the 2019 trial of former Australian Cardinal George Pell, who was accused of sexually abusing two choirboys in the 1990s.
Despite widespread media coverage and public opinion against Him, the jury in his case ultimately acquitted him after carefully considering the evidence. This case demonstrates protection against bias because Cardinal had already been jailed for 400 days (Cook, 2021). Cook (2021) holds that “…Court ruled unanimously, 7-0, ‘a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted because the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof’” (p. 89). This means that Cardinal George Pell’s guilt was subject to reasonable doubt, as the evidence presented at trial did not meet the threshold for establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Additionally, Australia’s criminal justice system prides itself on upholding the principles of justice and fairness, and the trial by jury system plays a crucial role in achieving this. One high-profile case in which trial by jury served justice was the Chamberlain murder case. The case involved a mother wrongly accused and convicted of murdering her infant daughter (Azaria), leading to her imprisonment for years before being exonerated.
Henderson (2005) mentions, “The royal commission pardoned the Chamberlains…In 1992, twelve years after Azaria’s disappearance, they were awarded 1.3 million dollars in damages, plus legal costs” (p. 12). The commissioner declared that the evidence against the Chamberlains was insufficient to secure a conviction. Chamberlain received justice because it was a trial with a jury that required valid evidence; she would not have received it if it had been a trial by imprisonment.
Trial by Jury Criticism
However, there has been some criticism of the trial by jury system, as seen in the Gordon Wood case of 2008. The case involved the death of Caroline Byrne, which received widespread attention not only for its high-profile nature but also for calling into question the validity of the trial by jury. Many people were vocal in their criticism of the jury system, arguing that emotional appeals can sway jurors and that they may not have the necessary legal expertise to fully comprehend complex cases.
Clifford and Mitchell (2009) affirm, “…jury members were accused of planning their own ‘unauthorized night-time excursion to the claimed crime scene” (p. 88). This suggests that the jury members may have attended the crime scene without official authority, which could have influenced their verdict. This resulted in the trial’s original termination, followed by its resumption with 15 jurors instead of the required 12. Due to the previous jury’s misbehavior, it was necessary to retry the case with a larger jury panel.
Trial by Jury Improvisation
There is no denying that the trial by jury system has its strengths, though there are equally as many areas that could be improved. To enhance the efficacy of the Australian criminal justice system, the judiciary could consider measures to improve the jury selection process. This could be done by introducing more thorough vetting procedures to ensure the selection of jurors who are unbiased and have no personal affiliations to the case. As in Gordon Wood’s 2008 complaint, the jury could have been compromised by an unauthorized visit to the crime scene (Clifford & Mitchell, 2009). Such corruption cases among the jury can be addressed by improving specific areas, such as punishing jurors for misconduct, ensuring standard ethical education, providing adequate compensation for jurors, and protecting whistleblowers within the judiciary.
Punishing a jury for misconduct is a critical step in eradicating corruption within the criminal justice system. Deterrence, public trust, and accountability are critical to this process. Juror misconduct includes but is not limited to discussing the case with anyone other than fellow jurors and being influenced by any outside information or evidence (NC Pro, 2021). Similarly, the juror should not voice an opinion on the matter, visit the crime scene without permission, be intoxicated during the trial, or engage in any other conduct that would compromise the integrity of the trial.
When a jury is found to have committed misconduct, it sends a strong message to others to act in the best interest of justice. This fear of punishment will deter future offenders from engaging in misconduct or aligning with corrupt practices. Johnson (2019) agrees and supports that “…criminal deterrence involving a three-pronged approach in which certainty, celerity, and severity of punishment work…and that severe punishments deter crime” (p. 4). The fear of severe penalties, such as lengthy jail terms, fines, or even the death penalty, may deter individuals from engaging in illegal activity.
Furthermore, punishing a jury for misconduct helps build public trust in the justice system, highlighting the commitment to transparency and fairness. Accountability is likewise necessary, as jurors need to understand the seriousness and impact of their role on a defendant’s life. Battell-Wallace (2018) also proposes some ways to prevent juror misconduct. “…the commission supports the creation of a new statutory offense with clear and unambiguous language that criminalizes independent juror research” (p. 97). This idea would make it clear to jurors that conducting independent research is prohibited and provide a legal basis for disciplining jurors who engage in such behavior. By eliminating jury misconduct, this policy would ensure accurate verdicts and protect the right to a fair trial, thereby strengthening public confidence in the judicial system.
Similarly, jurors play a crucial role in the criminal justice system, and their knowledge of ethical standards is central to ending corruption. This knowledge enables them to identify misconduct and uphold the necessary moral and virtuous standards. For example, consider a case in which a judge is found to be taking bribes to rule in favor of a plaintiff or a defendant. Cicchini (2019) holds, “…courts must hold prosecutors and judges accountable for their misconduct, rather than diverting blame” (p. 351).
Jurors who understand their ethical responsibilities will be able to identify such misconduct and hold the judge accountable for their actions. Holding judges and prosecutors accountable for their actions prevents abuse of power, including false convictions and unfair penalties. Individuals may have faith that those in positions of power will be held accountable for any misbehavior, thereby restoring public confidence in the judicial system.
Additionally, it is widely acknowledged that adequate compensation for jurors is crucial to maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system. By reducing financial pressure on jurors, compensation helps to ensure that they are not forced to make decisions based on their financial situations. This, in turn, can help prevent corruption in the system.
Alternatively, adequate compensation can encourage jury diversity, allowing a more representative group of citizens to participate in the decision-making process in criminal cases. Increased salaries have been one of the successes of judicial reforms in reducing corruption over the years (Mwithi, 2017). The author equally confirms that “…motivated staff; adequate financial resources, and physical infrastructure are some of the enablers of justice” (p. 24).
Compensation also enhances focus and attention during trials, as jurors are less likely to be distracted by concerns about their financial well-being. By encouraging civic participation in this way, compensation also improves morale and ensures that jurors are dedicated to serving justice rather than simply fulfilling their obligation. In summary, adequate compensation for jurors is a crucial tool in the fight against corruption within the criminal justice system.
Moreover, the judiciary is the key institution in safeguarding the rule of law and supporting a culture of transparency and accountability. As such, its role in protecting whistleblowers who come forward with information to expose criminal activities or unethical behavior within the criminal justice system is paramount. Anglican Missions (2023) similarly affirm this fact by stating that “…Anglican Missions will observe utmost confidentiality in the whistleblowing process.”
Anglican Missions guarantees that no individual who makes a genuine report under the policy will suffer any adverse consequences, in accordance with the Protected Disclosures Act 2000. Whistleblowers can provide invaluable evidence to prosecutors or courts when investigating allegations of corruption within criminal justice systems. When whistleblowers can report on illegal activities without fear of retribution, it serves as a significant deterrent against further illegal activity. It strengthens public trust in the system as a whole.
Furthermore, protecting whistleblowers ensures that individuals are not afraid to come forward with relevant information about corrupt practices within their institutions, thereby reducing impunity for those responsible for such misconduct. This encourages citizens to feel more secure about reporting any suspicions they may have about the integrity of their justice system, thereby increasing transparency and accountability overall (Ali & Khan, 2022).
Finally, judicial protection for whistleblowers serves as an effective check against abuses perpetrated by those in positions of power over vulnerable populations. This population is particularly minorities—thereby promoting greater social equity across societies worldwide. Lewis (2020) gives examples of countries that protect whistleblowers: “Section 2A (1) of Norway’s Work Environment Act 2005, Australia’s Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013, Section 3 of New Zealand’s Protected Disclosures Act 2000, and Article 2 of Korea’s Act” (p. 3). By ensuring that individuals are not intimidated into silence when raising concerns about violations occurring throughout the criminal justice process, people can create a more just society. A society where everyone’s voices can be heard equally, regardless of one’s station in life or socio-economic background.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the trial by jury system has a long and varied history in Australia. It is an effective mechanism for determining a defendant’s guilt or innocence and can often yield positive results. In the case of Cardinal George Pell, a jury reached a unanimous decision in his favor despite considerable pressure from both sides to sway their verdict. Similarly, the Chamberlain murder case showed how jurors could be impartial even when societal expectations seemed set against its conclusion. Most recently, the 2008 Gordon Wood case demonstrated that juries remain capable of delivering justice for victims when all other avenues have failed them.
Nevertheless, efforts to enforce higher ethical standards, punish juror misconduct, and provide adequate compensation are essential to ending corruption among jurors in the criminal justice system. It is equally significant for the judiciary to protect whistleblowers who possess information about potential corruption or mismanagement, as this can prevent future issues from arising. Suppose society continues to emphasize the importance of these components throughout the criminal justice system. In that case, it will be one step closer to achieving a world free from unethical practices and corruption.
References
Ali, N., & Khan, K. I. (2022). Identification and protection of corporate whistleblowers: A legal perspective. 123-132.
Anglican Missions. (2023). Whistleblower policy.
Battell-Wallace, O. (2018). No search results in fairness: Addressing jurors’ independent research in the 21st century. Victoria U. Wellington Law Review, 49, 83-105.
Cicchini, M. D. (2019). Constraining Strickland. Texas A&M Law Review, 7, 351-360.
Clifford, K., & Mitchell, G. (2009). The killer point: Contemporary reconfigurations of the gap as a crime scene. Law Text Culture, 13, 80-102.
Cook, M. (2021). ‘Naked to mine enemies‘: Cardinal George Pell and the media. Church, Communication and Culture, 6(1), 80-93.
Gleeson, K. (2020). Reckoning with denial and complicity: Child sexual abuse and the case of Cardinal George Pell. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 9(4), 32-42.
Henderson, M. (2005). Lindy 3.
Johnson, B. (2019). Do criminal laws deter crime? Deterrence theory in criminal justice policy: A primer. MN House Research. 1-18.
Lewis, D. (2020). The EU directive on the protection of whistleblowers: A missed opportunity to establish international best practices? E-Journal of International and Comparative Labour Studies, 1-20.
Mwithi, K. L. (2017). Mitigating corruption in the Kenyan judiciary: A case study of legal and administrative anti-corruption framework (Doctoral dissertation, Strathmore University). 1-32.
NC Pro. (2021). Juror misconduct.