Criminal justice

Criminal justice

1. A venue is the particular location where crime was committed. Venue may become a concern if for example the crime was committed in various locations or when part of a crime is committed in a certain location and the completed in another venue. The venue of a criminal case can be changed due to publicity in the media. This is because one of the reasons for changing the venue of a case is pretrial publicity. If the criminal is too much publicized, the jury is likely to become impartial as a result of media leaks about the case. This then allows the procedural rules to admit the moving of the case for the transfer of the case to another jurisdiction in order to avoid prejudice or hostility of the juror.
2. The role of a trial jury is to find the facts in a particular case. The judge is responsible for determining the law concerning the same case. The trial jury plays the role of listening to the dispute, then evaluates all the evidences that have been presented, then making a decision about the facts of the case, and finally makes a decision that is guided by the law and that is regulated by their own jury directions. The jury will only provide a verdict of either guilty or not guilt. The judge will then make the penalty. The importance of the trial jury is to check on the power of the state. Another importance is to provide a means of integrating the norms of the society and their values to the judicial proceedings. In addition the trial jury also offers an opportunity to the citizens to be able to validate the criminal statutes especially in applications in particular trials. Moreover the jury trial also plays the role of educating the citizens on matters of self-governance. This is a positive aspect of the legal system because it is tailored to enlighten and educate the common citizen on legal matters and matters of judicial impartiality.
3. I agree on the importance of plea bargaining. This is because a plea bargaining is advantageous to both the defendant and the prosecution in that it saves time. It avoids lengthy trials in cases of crimes and on the other hand, it enables the defendant to evade risking conviction especially on a more serious charge. It may also allow the crime defendant to be accorded a linier charge that when they go through the whole trial. The victim of crime can be consulted in assessing the extent of the crime for example in a crime f multiple counts. However the crime defendant cannot negotiate the term with the prosecution since the prosecution will still rule on the punishment or even withdraw some of the punishment aspect for example they may give a more lenient rule.
4. In such a case, the witness protection act must be revoked. This is because the case involves a crime that threatens the witness’s life. There is provisions for witness protection which can only be revealed to the judge in a private session. I would therefore invoke the act and request for a private session due to the circumstances surrounding this case and for purposes of preventing the escape of the other cahoots in the same dealings.
5. As a juror, it is important to remember that the 5^th amendment gives all the criminal defendants the right to remain silent. Therefore, I cannot force the defendant to volunteer information. In this case of rape and with the DNA results indicating that the defendant was actually involved, I would consider the other side of the case that there could have been concession between the victim and the defendant. This is because there is no evidence that force was used since there are no tears or even evidences of a forced canal knowledge. In addition, the defendant may have decided not to testify in the case due to his poor demeanor. This is also allowed by law since his demeanor may be affected by the circumstances in which if he testified, the judges would not be able to believe that he is telling the truth. A judge cannot infer guilt just because the defendant remains silent.
6. The use of peers is proving that the law belongs to the people. It instills confidence in the people about the judiciary and the impartiality of the law. Having specific people trained on legal matters to become professionals that will always sit in court hearing is both good and bad. This is because it is good to have professionals in judicial matters since they offer informed decisions. However, the absence of the common peers is likely to erode the confidence that the common people have on the judiciary since they will see themselves as being secluded. It also makes it hard for them to understand the laws that govern them.
7. The first proposal of having 12 members of the bench and that allows for a 9 to 3 verdict

is okay since it is within the recommendations of the sixth amendment. This is because the 12 member jury did not violate the rule of role since it was still above the requirement of above five members. However in some instance it has been difficult to attain the majority 9 out of twelve in ruling. On the other hand having increased members in a bench gives more confidence in the impartiality of the verdict. It also confirms that the verdict was properly informed.

On the other hand having a six member bench who must rule unanimously is also right. This is because it is what was recommended by the Supreme Court in 1979. In the case of Burch v. Louisiana it was found that a ruling of 5 to 1 violates the recommendations of the sixth amendment. The Supreme Court therefore recommended that for a 6 member jury then they must have a unanimous verdict. Therefore the second recommendation is also right since it will not violate any law and it gives confidence to the verdict since the unanimous rule is  prove of an informed verdict.

8. There are advantages and disadvantages of having the legislature or the judges determine a case alone. This is because the legislature is a representation of the people. The laws of the land are derived from the people and are made for the proper functioning of the state and for purposes of providing cohesion in the existence of the people. It is therefore important to allow the legislature to play its rightful role in making, amending and even repealing laws. It is a representation of the people that the courts rule on. However, it is important that the legal system have some conventions and standards to ensure justice and impartiality. Legislature may be influence politically in passing some amendments or even laws this means that some regulations are crucial. On the other hand, the judges are imperative since they are professionals in law. This ensures that the decisions of the court are informed by previous rulings and also morality. The judges also give an impartial image to the courts since the judges are not under influence of politics or other inclinations. This builds trust of the courts from the citizens. However, judges should not be rigid in ruling since they represent a society that is dynamic, they should be dynamic and change with times to ensure the impartiality of law.

Last Completed Projects