Is It More Prejudicial or Beneficial to Allow Research into the Workings of Juries - Coursework Example

Word count: 2292 Order# 351229 d 13th January Is it more prejudicial or beneficial to allow research into the workings of juries? Judiciary plays crucial role in adjudication process and there by settling the conflicts arising on various issues among different persons, institutions and organizations. The Jury would be highly instrumental in providing the genuine judgments in cases of differences in opinion and conflicts. The Jury also puts tremendous regulation on the mechanism of legislature and public administration and facilitates smooth balance between the various wings of the governance. In the recent years, some scholars opined that the research may be allowed in the Jury process which is being opposed by other school of thought. Though the supporters argue that the allowing research in to Jury process would facilitate higher transparency and participatory approach, it may lead to loss of privacy of the Jury and they may not be in a position to take a neutral decision in some sensitive issues like organ donation bill. The Judiciary may be asked to provide its advice on the implementation of sensitive issues like organ donation bill and their functioning should be completely free from the interference from research. Overall, the prejudicial effect of allowing research in to the working of the Jury dominates the beneficial effects. Introduction Judiciary is a vital component of the governance in any nation. Judicial review is one of the most important processes that aids in maintaining the law and order and moral standards in any society (Kaplan and martin, 2006). Jury is nothing but a legal process in which decision making would be done by judge based on the facts or evidence submitted. Several countries follow the procedure of Jury to which the common people give maximum emphasis with highest level of confidence and respect. For example, the English common law and United States constitution recognize the right to jury a trial as a fundamental right and civil right and acknowledges that the citizens are empowered with the right to express in front of the jury. Common citizens always have faith in the genuineness of the judgment under several circumstances and they would give higher emphasis to the judiciary in matters of conflict with other parties. The reason behind this concept the element of neutrality in judgment and the impartiality in interpretation. Though several theories have been formulated for the growth of the science of law and judiciary, the basic things remain same and the sanctity with which the judgment would be delivered is the vital element for the common people. Need for the optimum balance among wings of governance The development of new concepts in growth of law and judiciary is well accepted and the basic nature of the decision making by the judiciary and interpretation of the arguments of both the parties or clients would be highly transparent. However, there is an alarming trend that the other wings of the governance like administration and legislature some times interfere in to the role of the judiciary making it difficult to work sincerely (Patterson and Gross, 2007). Hence this trend has to be discouraged and the trust of the common man on the principles of judiciary should be well maintained to resolve the conflicts in several circumstances. In other words, an optimum balance has to be maintained among the several wings of the governance and the judiciary should be allowed to work with transparency and flexibility. In the recent times, one more challenge has emerged for the judiciary in the form of research in to the jury process. The interference of media and other agencies in to the judgments delivered by the judiciary also has been growing which is to be discouraged (Hans and Vidmar, 2001). The media can very much focus on the pros and cons of the judgments of the judiciary by concentrating on the technical elements instead of commenting on the style and nature of judgment. Hence, this raises the scope for the debate on the topic “ is it more prejudicial or beneficial to allow research in to the workings of the juries”? This requires thorough interpretation of some vital bills like organ donation bill and applicability of the same in the public cases. Two schools of thought on research in to the working of the Jury Two types of contradictory views are generally expressed by the people regarding the research in to the workings of the jury. Those who argue that it should be encouraged say that the freedom of expression of citizens must be facilitated and the common man will be having higher access to all types of advantages and disadvantages of the specific judgment. However, the other side of the view is that the jury must be allowed to work independently with out any interference from any side and they should also have a feeling of confidentiality so that they would work with full determination and commitment. Keeping these aspects in consideration, the present study is being initiated to assess the positive and negative effects of the allowing research in tot eh workings of the juries. The various nations have different views on this aspect. Some nations support the research importance in to the Jury process where as other nations consider the allowing of research in to the Jury as a potential threat to the expression of feelings by the common people and the neutrality of the judgment would be challenged (Griffith, 1997). For example, the Australian constitution opines that the research should be regulated so that it shouldn’t interfere in to the Jury process. The element of confidentiality of the Jury is vital for the genuine judgment for resolving the conflicts among the people and institutions and hence the research shouldn’t be allowed to Jury process. Hence, the voir dire system of examining the jury pool before selection has not been permitted in Australia. In this way, their regulations strongly protect the privacy of the jurors. In this way, the Jurors will have highest level of flexibility and they will work with full freedom and try to come up with the best or ideal judgment and the common people get tremendous benefit due to this nature of law. At the same time, the people are also allowed to challenge the judgments based on the technical points. The regulatory mechanism is restricted to research in to the Jury process. In case of USA, the Jurors may be questioned as there exists a voir dire system. In the cases Apprendi v New Jersey (2000), the Supreme Court of USA mentioned that that a criminal defendant would have a right to a jury trial not just based upon on the ground of innocence or guilt, but based on any evidence exercised to enhanced the defendants sentence beyond the maximum which otherwise granted by statutes or regulations. The similar judgment was given in case of Blakely v Washington (2004). However, in nations like United kingdom, the decisions of the Jurors are accepted with out any questions as there is no voir dire system. Though in England, there has been certain extent of screening in some sensitive security cases, the Scotland doesn’t provide any scope for the screening of Jury decisions. Critical look at organ donation bill Organ donation bill allows the donation or transfer of organs from one person (donor) to another person (recipient) for meeting the requirement of the recipient. United Kingdom has introduced organ donation (presumed consent) bill in 2008-09 session in the House of Commons (Great Britain Parliament House of Commons, 2009). This bill is instrumental in enhancing the rate of donors for tissue or organ transplantation and it will also reduce the cases of exploitation. According to this bill, any person who has not during his lifetime registered an objection to his whole body, or any specified part of his body after his death it shall be presumed as if he agreed for such a donation. However, it has some exceptions in cases where the diseased person’s partner or spouse informs that he or she expressed objection to tissue or organ transplantation or donation. As the transfer of organs provides ample scope for exploitation by some section of the people, it has a legal challenge (Chapman et al., 1997). There should be an optimum balance between the medical necessity of some genuine people and legitimate use. In other words, if law is not well defined and regulated, there would be ample scope for large scale exploitation of innocent people by vendors or middle men. Keeping this in view, several sections of the society have been opposing the organ donation bill. However, during this process, several genuine people who are in urgent need of crucial organs like liver and kidneys have been suffering badly. This led to the division of opinion between the two sections i.e. one supporting the organ donation and the other opposing the organ donation. Several nations initiated efforts to facilitate the organ donation process and to help the patients suffering from organ failure. In some nations, the organ donation process has been completely legalized with some control on the defined practices. The organs can be donated by the close relatives and family members of the patient which wouldn’t come under exploitation. Similarly, the people who are on death bed due to accidents may like to donate the organs and it can be accepted. In some nations like New Zealand, the earlier acts related to human tissues have been amended to facilitate the organ donation bill. The human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment bill was initiated in New Zealnad by amending the Human Tissue Act 1964 which facilitated the establishment of a register on which people have to register their legally-binding wish to be an organ donor. In this way, the regulation has been provided to reduce the exploitation process. Moreover, the people may also state their objection to being an organ donor and they are encouraged to provide for public information campaigns related to organ transplantation. In this way, the new bill encouraged more registrations of the donors. In addition, the it also provide a means of transferring existing donor information on the LTSA database to the register so that the patients in urgent need and their relatives would be having full and free access to the information. However, in several nations, still efforts are on to pass the organ donation bill due to strict legal objections. The legislature may also seek the opinion of the judiciary on the sensitive bills like organ donation bill for making a meaningful decision. When the decision has to be taken by the Jury in the cases related to organ donation bill, they must be allowed to work with full freedom and flexibility and their working cannot be interfered by allowing the research in the name of freedom of expression of people. In other words, the decision of allowing research in to Jury working process is more prejudicial than the beneficial effects. Conclusion Judiciary is an important wing of decision making process related to settling the conflicts among different persons. The Jury aids in coming up with the genuine judgments in cases of differences in opinion and conflicts and hence it certainly infuses confidence among the common people better than legislature and administration wings of the governance. The Jury also hastens the process of justice to the poor and the oppressed in cases of their exploitation by the rich and powerful sections of the society. It also facilitates smooth balance between the various wings of the governance like legislature and administration. The permission to conduct the research in to Jury process may lead to higher level of transparency and participatory and collective decision making. However, it become a potential challenge to the privacy of the Jury and their flexibility is under threat before taking final decisions related to crucial instruments like organ donation bill. Hence, the research may be allowed with strict regulations and defined limits so that both the freedom of expression and privacy of the Jury are satisfied. Annotated Bibliography Chapman, J.R., Wight, C. & Deierhoi, M. (1997). Organ and Tissue Donation for Transplantation. Hodder Arnold publication. P:488. ISBN-10: 0340613947. The authors gave a brief and comprehensive analysis of social, technical and legal aspects of organ and tissue donation for transplantation. Great Britain Parliament House of Commons. (2009). Organ Donation (Presumed Consent) Bill (House of Commons Bills). Stationery Office Books publication. P:8. ISBN-10: 0215518764. Griffith, J.A.G. (1997). The politics of the Judiciary. Fontana Press publication. P:376. ISBN-10: 0006863817. The author provided a classical presentation of how the judges are not able to act neutrally and get influenced by politics in the society. Various issues like miscarriages of justice, the Criminal Justice Act, the enhanced use of Judicial Review and the impacts of anti-trade union legislation of the 1980s. Hans, V.P. & Vidmar, N. (2001). Judging the jury. Basic books publication. P:286. ISBN-10: 0738205745. Both these authors explained the importance of giving higher emphasis to Jury by the common people in resolving their conflicts. They also explained the importance of maintaining flexibility and privacy to the Jury. Kaplan,M.F. & Martin, A.M. (2006). Understanding World Jury Systems Psychological Research. Psychology press publication. P:240. ISBN-10: 1841694215. The authors gave a nice description of the various stages of psychological decision making process of Judiciary after through analysis of some important legal case judgments. New Zealand Parliament. (2007). About our Parliament, Human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill. http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Legislation/Bills/9/5/9/00DBHOH_BILL7223_1-Human-Tissue-Organ-Donation-Amendment-Bill.htm. Accessed on 11.1.2010. Dr. Jackie Blue, member in charge of the Parliament, New Zealand has introduced this bill on 22nd March, 2006 and later it was submitted to health Committee of the Parliament, New Zealand Patterson, J. & Gross, A. (2007). Judge and Jury. Headline publication. P:448. ISBN-10: 0755330498. The authors came up with a legal thriller in which various aspects of Jury were well explained. Read More