David Szach
Registered Member
I would appreciate an objectivity of comment For and Against on the necessity of a Jury to (identity) what became (significant) to the outcome of its verdict against the Plea of an accused.
Jury Act (Criminal) Trial by Jury
Because Alfred the Great, when he invented trial by jury and knew that he had admirably framed it to secure justice in his age of the world, was not aware that in the nineteenth century the condition of things would be so entirely changed … For how could he imagine that we simpletons would go on using his jury plan after circumstances had stripped it of its usefulness, any more than he could imagine that we would go on using his candle-clock after we had invented chronometers?
––- Mark Twain, ROUGHING IT (1872), Chap XLVIII
Intent of Amendment:
To have ensured the sufficiency of prosecutorial cases to exercise the highest standard of integrity throughout that process of evidencing the Guilt of an accused. By excluding that potentiality of an (prejudicially impaired and\or erroneous) verdict.
In each prosecutorial case, there requires to be (evidenced) and satisfied - that each (element) of that alleged criminality, has been established to the Sitting Majority of the Jury. In which, each member has sworn to collectively Deliberate and return a fair and just verdict.
Implicit of that Deliberative process - is the (inherent obligation) of the Jury (as a united body), to weight each evidential element – against the Closing Directions and Instructions of the Presiding Justice.
I.e: Hearsay (3rd Party) evidence cannot be corroboratively relied as proof of a factual event. As opposed to (1st and Direct), on which corroborative of, becomes actual of that factual event.
A process which consequent of, stands empowered to determine;
1.. If the Prosecution has established firstly, that body of evidence and, secondly, if the guilt of the accused has been established.
2.. In the instance of a (circumstantial) prosecution, if, that same body of evidence – excludes that possibility of the accused’s innocence.
Foremostly, becomes that Legislation obligation to ensure the right of an accused to be (judged) on the evidence impartially and fair. To protectively so ensure – by formally requiring of the Jury, to (identify) firstly what became required to be proved and, secondly, actual of, to isolate and identify, what (evidence) became singular and\or implicit of, to that certainty of Guilt.
--- Consideration should also be given to the Legislative introduction of a “Not Proven” Verdict. As to have addressed that prevailing issue of Double Jeopardy. A Verdict of “Not Guilty” would become a (factual finding) of innocence ---
The necessity of such Amendment, is to balance-out what became the same (rationale) behind - that necessity for the Verdict of the Jury to reflect the Majority of, as opposed to Unanimously of each.
Such Amendment of, would not weaken, undermine or otherwise compromise the Statutory Obligation of State - to Protect and Serve. Rather, to stand in (testament) to the intent of State, to ensure the standing (equality) of each citizen governed.
Of so ensuring, no victim of Judicial Inadequacy, will be denied that right of having otherwise (excused) the merit actual - of such possibility.
Implicit of that Legislative Amendment is to (minimise) the time an (innocent) remains held behind bars. The cost to State and public confidence.
Again, your comments thereof would be appreciated.
David Szach
09/03/2008
Jury Act (Criminal) Trial by Jury
Because Alfred the Great, when he invented trial by jury and knew that he had admirably framed it to secure justice in his age of the world, was not aware that in the nineteenth century the condition of things would be so entirely changed … For how could he imagine that we simpletons would go on using his jury plan after circumstances had stripped it of its usefulness, any more than he could imagine that we would go on using his candle-clock after we had invented chronometers?
––- Mark Twain, ROUGHING IT (1872), Chap XLVIII
Intent of Amendment:
To have ensured the sufficiency of prosecutorial cases to exercise the highest standard of integrity throughout that process of evidencing the Guilt of an accused. By excluding that potentiality of an (prejudicially impaired and\or erroneous) verdict.
In each prosecutorial case, there requires to be (evidenced) and satisfied - that each (element) of that alleged criminality, has been established to the Sitting Majority of the Jury. In which, each member has sworn to collectively Deliberate and return a fair and just verdict.
Implicit of that Deliberative process - is the (inherent obligation) of the Jury (as a united body), to weight each evidential element – against the Closing Directions and Instructions of the Presiding Justice.
I.e: Hearsay (3rd Party) evidence cannot be corroboratively relied as proof of a factual event. As opposed to (1st and Direct), on which corroborative of, becomes actual of that factual event.
A process which consequent of, stands empowered to determine;
1.. If the Prosecution has established firstly, that body of evidence and, secondly, if the guilt of the accused has been established.
2.. In the instance of a (circumstantial) prosecution, if, that same body of evidence – excludes that possibility of the accused’s innocence.
Foremostly, becomes that Legislation obligation to ensure the right of an accused to be (judged) on the evidence impartially and fair. To protectively so ensure – by formally requiring of the Jury, to (identify) firstly what became required to be proved and, secondly, actual of, to isolate and identify, what (evidence) became singular and\or implicit of, to that certainty of Guilt.
--- Consideration should also be given to the Legislative introduction of a “Not Proven” Verdict. As to have addressed that prevailing issue of Double Jeopardy. A Verdict of “Not Guilty” would become a (factual finding) of innocence ---
The necessity of such Amendment, is to balance-out what became the same (rationale) behind - that necessity for the Verdict of the Jury to reflect the Majority of, as opposed to Unanimously of each.
Such Amendment of, would not weaken, undermine or otherwise compromise the Statutory Obligation of State - to Protect and Serve. Rather, to stand in (testament) to the intent of State, to ensure the standing (equality) of each citizen governed.
Of so ensuring, no victim of Judicial Inadequacy, will be denied that right of having otherwise (excused) the merit actual - of such possibility.
Implicit of that Legislative Amendment is to (minimise) the time an (innocent) remains held behind bars. The cost to State and public confidence.
Again, your comments thereof would be appreciated.
David Szach
09/03/2008
