Justice and Forensic Science in Chamberlain - Case Study Example

Justice and Forensic Science on Chamberlain Case Name Institution Justice and Forensic Science on Chamberlain Case Contextual information; Based on the argument presented by the prosecutor during the trial, this case was simply of alternatives; that are either a dingo that took Azaria or the other way round that her mother was responsible for her death (Chamberlain, 2013). On a Sad notation, after the exoneration of Lindy by the police officers, the public and the government who were in favor of the murder were not of the intention of giving consideration to the optional claim; that is dingo being responsible. With regards to the same, people who lacked the experience in connection with system of justice that mistakes the impression of speaking the truth of placing all the cards on the table (Clarke and Reno, 2007). In this regard, it was the judge or jury will have a look at painfully while administering justice. The truth is that no justice occurs following this instance. The legal system of Australia relies on the British Commonwealth law which puts an individual innocent until such a time when proven guilty with evidence collected over the same. In this regard, juror used the section of the law that many could not understand (Cooper, 2008). Unlike system 0of justice available in other countries, the law does not permit an individual to prove his or her innocence (Mann, 2010). For instance, in the event that a person or an organization proceeds to sue another, then it will be adversarial unto each of them. With the case of Asaria, the case was more of disappearance and also an assumption of death (Bogusz, 2008). The magistrate of the corner held onto the inquest with the determination to dictate the cause of the loss and death. Likewise, the Crown’s role was to be the “Minister of Justice” where in this case he was to in collaboration with the magistrate in finding for the solution for the mystery (McCartney, 2006). On their part, the police and the forensic labs worked a lot in seeking for the evidence which in this case was to include anything related and also without any form bias or favor with it. The importance of trace evidence Indeed, it was the duty of the Crown to bring to the courtroom all the evidence plus witnesses such as eyewitness with the exception of opinions as they seek to establish the truth in relation to the collected evidence (Daéid, 2010). Due this instance, there would be lack of normalcy among the Chamberlains in obtaining a lawyer. For instance, the Crown must abide with them. Likewise, there were no accusations. Until such a pint when the first inquest surfaced, there were much rumor and innuendo and following this instance, police gave advice on hiring a lawyer to facilitate in keeping watch of the developments during the scene. In any case, there were questions or any other concerns; there was a chance for raising questions or making some points towards the same (Embar-Seddon and Pass, 2009). At the same time, a lawyer would not only be for defense but also to serve as additional check the same way the Crown would participate in the establishment of the truth minus inclusion of any form of biasness. The second inquest may appear quite unique (Payne-James, 2005). For instance, it may remain totally adversarial and in the case where the Chamberlains got warning informing them of possibility of facing trials. In this case it appears that the role of the Crown was to be serving as the “minister for justice” got an assumption with regards to the inquests concerning the future. Since the current decision does not permit one to have the defense testimonials against the available evidence or even sharing of information leave alone those available from the list of witnesses and even permitting these people’s legal rights through defending themselves, then the hope for the Chamberlains in this case is the use of the second inquest with the objective of making and also learning those angles that Crown would deploy in establishing the trials (Tilstone, Savage, and Clark, 2006). For instance, the lines remain very clear over this matter. With regards to the same, as at present, the behavior of the minister of justice relied on the tactical with the intention of obtaining and maintaining the conviction process. The reason in this case could be the explanation why government gave Lindy the option following the second inquest. For example, it is said that Lindy was guilty though had freedom in insisting that she was indeed innocent despite being taken to jail (Staines, Arrow and Biber, 2009). Similarly, those leaders from the NT government had the priority in every instance plus the government that also controlled the treasury. Finally, they ended up spending more than five hours a day compared to Chamberlains as much as the figures stated within the public context were once from Royal Commission. The chain of custody Indeed there was a little information concerning the evidence the Crown would submit during the trial simply because the Chamberlains were never in agreement with loss from Crown attachments (Ruffell and Murphy, 2011). The reason is because they had the knowledge that Crown was incorrect with respect to the car being not awash in the blood. In this regard the statement meant that they failed to get the chance to have accessibility to the available evidence and with the inclusion of their normal tests ( Mann, 2010). Similarly, the Chamberlains had no chance in then accessibility of the evidence of the Crown that was applicable for test purposes immediately before the hearing process. With regards to the case of an extra ordinary move the Northern Territory Attorney General had his arguments that targeted the evidence that was the so called Elsewhere, it be that the available information while at the same time shows that jury had reached to such a n extent that members had their resolutions over it before trial (Lyle, 2012). For instance, at least one jury had boasts the neighbors were happy with the jury itself where for instance, men had hope that he trusts hi woman. Similarly, to this, many believed that the jury would lead to them becoming stronger with regards to understanding in the year. Even the placement, most they became difficult especially with regards to the requirements that dictate the same when off from duty (Houck and Siegel, 2010). For instance, majority of the jurors do find the trial unbearable or difficult. The community longed status is the incorporation. An example in this case where there are four guilty and at the same that include element. Elsewhere, since Chamberlain Company have no permission to follow their available evidence, in this case they had to depend the evidence that relates with the Crown forensic scientist’s notes. For instance, it became impossible and added with Jungian Houck, M. and (Siegel, 2006). Crown to connect all the wise. The unique thing here is that the supposed to be used, Crown test had a design to test blood and at the same had vulnerability since were very little evident of the same Managing Complexity; On particular person came in the room that the test on components was taking place sincerely could correction coming. Likewise, there was a guy if can posting in this field. Following this instance, it is always not true to let such developments happen Lindy especial in the dark way that saw this juncture (Fraser, 2010). On their noting, eight regard in developing Chamberlain’s facts of guilty mess. However, the instance, leaves out the case of the belief that there was to be an a appeal that took place (Fridell, 2007). The process of appeal for instance has no evidence linked with it. The instance itself only looks the suitable cost in terms of its vitality. Despite being correct or note, the lawyers are happy with court procedure and how were treatments and other likely occurring eventuality and also being the fact lawyers played their role well over the matter. In other words, legal present ration of the case was the responsible easier towards hearing and its effective determination during hearing process. Despite the availability of all the evidences or the Crown tactics even mistakes in defenses, there was no opportunity for making appeals after ruling (Fisher, 2008). Likewise, some of the judges noted that verdict of guilty was indeed wrong and as consequently, they did upheld that the correct jury in making decision was the way they made their ruling..In any case, there was a supportive evidence in refute of the claims from Crown, their hearings, was possible during appeals hearing. On a similar note, the matinee jacket was never in court and its claim of existence was only presented by Lindy. For this reason, identifying the jacked became evidence (Payne-James, 2005). At the same, just discovery after conviction that the ‘arterial under dash spray’ was in fact sound deadener, and other supposed ‘blood’ substances were milkshake, and copper dust were not new evidence – the substances had already been discussed in court – and it was only considered additional evidence. It therefore could not be presented in the appeals court. It would have to be referred back to the Northern Territory, who could choose whether to reopen the case or not. Lindy was ultimately released from prison because of political pressure, and a journalist threatening to expose the way the Northern Territory government of the day had hidden and twisted the truth ( Yacine and Fellag, 2011). Since Lindy had reached the end of all legal avenues available to her, Federal and Territory laws had to be changed to allow for a Royal Commission, and the quashing of the convictions, giving complete exoneration of the Chamberlains. References Chamberlain, J. (2013). Recognition and Social Justice: What Critical Theory Can Learn From Paid Domestic Laborers in the United States. New Political Science, 35(2), pp.182-202. Clarke, G. and Reno, J. (2007). Justice and science. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Cooper, C. (2008). Forensic science. New York, N.Y.: DK Publishing. Bogusz, M. (2008). Forensic science. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Daéid, N. (2010). Fifty years of forensic science. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Embar-Seddon, A. and Pass, A. (2009). Forensic science. Pasadena, Calif.: Salem Press. Fisher, J. (2008). Forensics under fire. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press. Fridell, R. (2007). Forensic science. Minneapolis, Minn.: Lerner Publications Co. Fraser, J. (2010). Forensic science. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Houck, M. and Siegel, J. (2006). Fundamentals of forensic science. Amsterdam: Elsevier/Academic Press. Houck, M. and Siegel, J. (2010). Fundamentals of Forensic Science. Burlington: Elsevier Science. Lyle, D. (2012). Forensic science. Chicago: American Bar Association [Criminal Justice Section]. Mann, T. (2010). Flawed forensics. Adelaide: [Tom Mann]. McCartney, C. (2006). Forensic identification and criminal justice. Cullompton, UK: Willan. Payne-James, J. (2005). Encyclopedia of forensic and legal medicine. Amsterdam [etc.]: Elsevier Academic Press. Ruffell, A. and Murphy, E. (2011). An apparently jawless cadaver: A case of post-mortem slippage. Science & Justice, 51(4), pp.150-153. Staines, D., Arrow, M. and Biber, K. (2009). The Chamberlain case - nation, law, memory. North Melbourne, Vic: Australian Scholarly Pub. Tilstone, W., Savage, K. and Clark, L. (2006). Forensic science. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC- CLIO. Yacine, N. and Fellag, R. (2011). Forensic science. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Read More