The present selection Essay Example for Free

The present selection Essay Juries in England often described as the the jewel in the Crown, with 12 different faces on the jury that is its strength, of course there are automatic exemptions: for criminals and bankrupts and more importantly for professionals like lawyers, judges, prison officers and police. Others, like doctors, can seek exemptions. Its tighter in some States than others, but after all the exclusions, exemptions and excuses and lets not forgets the defence is entitled to challenge if they dont like the jury. Juries Act 1974 is the act governing the juries system in UK. Juries system been form in UK for insure the public justice system will be fairly deliver and up hold the justice, yet the present selection, exclusion, exemption and challenges procedures become a great question that did such method did representive of the public conscience. 1 The method of selection of juries subject to this section and section 5, every person enrolled as an elector for the Legislative Assembly shall be qualified and liable to serve as a juror, Therefore those age reach 18 up to 70 were eligible to become juror. This means this category of people details must listed in the Electoral Register records otherwise they wont be listed under the jurors selection list. Ten percent of England qualify votes, never register them self as the votes. The second issue is this category of people wills randomly choused. Thru random selection not all citizen will be selected as the juror even if they are entitle to become a juror. 2One important fact of random selection is its doesnt mean representative selection but its just cross-section of population. This shows that the current juror selection still need to be improve to an advances or alternate method such as using the records of National Registration of Birth and Death in order every qualify citizen not been left behind in the selection. After the selection processes done, all the selected juror will be summon for the final selection, at this stage numbers of them will be exempted from juror services, for having good reason. Those such as pregnant womens, ill-health person, those age 65 above, person facing deep hardship, medical officers, member of Parliaments, legal professionals or those with legal back ground on the past or current services. Those did serve, as juries in past two years also will be exempted from such services. The society still believed that in order to have better verdict thru jurys services, those been exempted due to their nature of duties should consider their participation in juries services, the possibility to such category of people might be better jurors because of having more experiences of life or working with people. Equal opportunity to participate in the fair administration of justice is fundamental to our democratic system. It not only furthers the goals of the jury system. It reaffirms the promise of equality under the law that all citizens, regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender, have the chance to take part directly in our democracy. 4 Powers v. Ohio, its shows and believed that no body should exclude base on solely because of race or gender, this promise of equality dims, and the integrity of our judicial system is jeopardized. The law makers need look in this factors for 5 commands the public confidences in order the juries system continuously will representative of the public conscience . 6In New York and many other State of USA source records for jury services been expended, all or most of exemptions from jury trail been sweep away, and excusal become largely deferred. This result is that nearly every one does jury service as an acknowledged civil duty, including, judges, lawyers, policeman. Doctors and clergymen. About a quarter of million people are summoned for the jury service every year. 7A recent Home Offices research project highlighted that only third of them an available to do so. It shows that, in sample of 50,000 people summoned for jury service in June and July 1999, one third of them available to do so, half of them been allowed to defer their service on later date. Of the remaining two-third, 13% were ineligible, disqualify or excused as of the rights. 15 % either failed to attend on the day or their summoned will returned as undelivered and 38% were excused. The Court also had the power to remove selected jurors if its consider on the account of disability or insufficient understanding of English. 9The Crown Court study undertaken during 1992 on behalf of Runciman Royal Commission, indicated that, nationality, ethnic minority communities seriously un present in juries service. This is due to this group of ethnic not registered in the electors The right of the jury Challenges is very limited in England and Wales compared with in any other country . 10. There is no longer right to Peremptory Challenge. It was abolished in 1988. Juries Act, 1927 s. 57 says the plaintiff or, where there are two or more plaintiffs, the plaintiffs jointly may challenge without cause shown three jurors and no more where there are two or more plaintiffs, they shall join in their challenges. Such 11 Privileges specially in sexual abuse case, not likely allow the female juror as the first choice, the defendant use to challenges the female juror The society believe the womens privileges to become potential juror in such cases become a barrier thru such challenges. Although there are a number of legitimate concerns with the current jury selection process in UK and while a number of options are open for reforming the process, the report concludes that a piecemeal approach to reform is not likely to successfully address the need to improve the system for racial, visible, ethno-cultural and other minorities The need is not only to address some or all of the out-of-court processes, but at the same time to reform the in-court procedures in the selection, exclusion, exemption and the challenges procedures of juries. It would appear to be necessary to undertake reform in order juries always representative of the society.