Explain How The Law Reflects Moral And Ethical Standards In Relation To The Use Of Juries

The law greatly reflects moral and ethical standards in relation to the use of juries as juries ensure an accused is judged by their peers and members of the community, however, the selection process in a jury can also result in a jury which does not fully reflect community standards. Under the Jury Act 1977 (NSW), any Australian citizen may be called to serve on a jury, and citizens are randomly selected from the electoral roll. This means that the jury is essentially a representation of the community and its interests, thus, enabling the views and opinions of society to be upheld when deciding a verdict. It also allows an accused to be judged by their peers and fellow citizens, instead of a judge, who may not be in touch with the ethical
moral and ethical standards of the community. This can be seen in an article, “It is “fundamental to the age old thing that our guilt or innocence is judged by our peers rather than someone who might not be in touch with what the ordinary community is thinking”” (News.com.au, 2013).
However, the Jury Act 1977 (NSW) also enables certain groups of citizens to be exempt from jury service such as members of the clergy and those in full time care of a sick, infirm or disabled person, meaning that often, a jury is composed mainly of senior and unemployed citizens, which is not a true representation of the different demographics of the community, as well as it’s standards. Therefore, the law greatly reflects moral and ethical standards in relation to the use of juries, as it allows an accused to be judged by their peers, however, these standards may also be narrowed down due to the ability of certain citizens to opt
out.
The law also significantly reflects moral and ethical standards in relation to the jury as decisions made by the jury must be unanimous or by majority verdict, however, a majority verdict may result in a miscarriage of justice.
A unanimous and majority verdict means that there is a higher standard by which the guilt of the accused must be proven, allowing lower chances of a wrongful conviction. This is because, within a trial involving the jury, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused to 10 or 11 or 12 jurors, instead of only one judge. The majority verdict was only introduced in recent years, to prevent rogue jurors from causing a mistrial due to the need for a unanimous verdict and a waste of large amounts of money being spent by the state and the accused in a trial. The reform was introduced following the case: R v Burrell 2005, in which a rogue juror was holding up a unanimous verdict, resulting in a mistrial. However, the subsequent reform only applied to criminal trials after the Burrell case. Despite the advantages of a majority verdict, such a verdict can also have negative implications on the accused if it happens to be that within a jury, the rogue juror is the only individual making a sensible and responsible verdict based on evidence presented in court. In this case, the verdicts of the other jurors would outweigh that of the rogue juror, potentially resulting in a wrongful conviction or ‘not guilty’ verdict. Thus, the law significantly reflects moral
and ethical standards as unanimous and majority verdicts allow for a higher standard of proof, however, majority verdicts may also result in justice being breached for the accused.
Despite the advantages of a jury, the law can fail to reflect moral and ethical standards in that ordinary citizens are often inexperienced in legal matters, leading to issues such as independent research by rogue jurors and misunderstandings of legal terms and scientific evidence. The use of juries can lead to cases where rogue jurors undertake their own research on the case, including visiting the crime scene or searching up the case online, instead of relying only on evidence presented in court, resulting in a mistrial and a significant waste of time and money. An example of this is the Gang Rape Case No.2, which resulted in a mistrial due to jurors visiting the crime scene to conduct their own research. The use of juries also means that individuals unfamiliar to legal proceedings may misinterpret legal terms or scientific evidence, as well as easily being swayed by a skilled lawyer or expert witnesses, leading to wrongful verdicts, and a potential miscarriage of justice towards the accused and the community. In this case, the use of a judge is advantageous due to their experience in legal proceedings. An example of this issue can be seen in: Fitzgerald v R [2014] HCA 15, where Fitzgerald’s conviction was quashed as the High Court found that the lack of eyewitness evidence beyond a problematic DNA sample should not have swayed the jury and resulted in a guilty verdict. Thus, the law can also lack in reflecting moral and ethical standards in regards to the use of the jury as ordinary citizens are often unskilled in legal matters, leading to mistrials and a potential for wrongful verdicts to be made.