The Effectiveness of the Criminal Trial Process as a Means of Achieving Justice

The criminal trial process, to a large extent, provides justice for victims, suspects and society as it is usually the default means to achieve justice; however sometimes the process is not completely effective and other means are sought to achieve justice, including non-legal methods. Generally, however, the criminal trial process is a very effective measure of achieving justice. Certain safeguards are put in place to create a fair and just trial such as the burden of proof being placed on the prosecution (state) to prove criminal culpability of the defendant and standard of proof being beyond reasonable doubt. Such safeguards allow a just and fair decision to be made meaning that a majority of all decisions will achieve justice for victims, offenders and society. The criminal trial process also requires all 12 jurors to judge whether the prosecution has met the standard of proof, meaning that generally, the conviction will be a reflection of the broader community, making the criminal trial process, to a large extent, an effective measure to achieve justice.

The criminal trial process aims to achieve justice for suspects, victims and society, through a system that balances the rights of all three. This can been seen in the case of R v Loveridge [2013] NSWSC 1638, where not only was justice achieved for society through the introduction of protections  under the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Assault and Intoxication) Act 2014 NSW, following the criminal trial process but also for Loveridge himself. In an article by the Sydney Morning Herald, published in 2013 dubbed “Emotions high on paroles and pleas but system works”, details of the charge reduction is seen with the article stating that “In the light of further investigation, the prosecutors did not think the requisite degree of reckless indifference or intention could be established at trial”. The article further states that “it seems Loveridge was over-charged by the police and this led to a high level of expectation”. This reduction in charges means that Loveridge will not be tried for crime he did not commit, allowing Loveridge and society (with members of society, generally, not wanting people convicted of crimes that they did not commit) to a large extent, effectively achieve justice through the process.


Sometimes victims are unable to completely achieve justice through the criminal trial process, with certain victims using other means. The unreported case of Nanette May, is a notable case, where May used the media to help her achieve justice due to the shortcomings of the criminal trial process. In a Sydney Morning Herald article published in 2009 titled “Forced to take on system” the details of Nanette May’s, generally, ineffective attempt to achieve justice in the criminal trial process, is noted “May was failed badly by safeguards put in place to ensure victims are kept informed about bargaining to reduce charges in return for guilty pleas”. The article also details the comments made by Roby Cotterell-Jones, “the executive director of the victims’ support unit of VOCAL, a service for victims of violent crime”, with her stating that “So many people say the system is almost worse than the crime”. This comment suggests that in some circumstances, the criminal trial process is not the most effective way to achieve justice. The article, however also states that “many victims and their advocates, say they would rather go to trial if there was strong enough evidence to secure a conviction; to ensure their horrific experiences – and their courage coming forwards – was not in vain”, highlighting to a large extent, the effectiveness that is perceived by the general community of the criminal trial process as a means of achieving justice. The 2010 guideline reforms that follow her case also show that although she may not have been able to directly gain the benefits of justice, those preceding her in similar circumstances are more able to effectively achieve justice through the criminal trial process.

If you have a burning question, or would like to featured in some way in the "Ask them from me" segment, email me at: cc3493@gmail.com. If you do not want to be featured in the "Ask them from me" featured post, please let me know in the email :)

Visit Particular Interest for more content like this!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Essay: "Frank Hurley: The Man Who Made History" by Simon Nasht

Legal and Non-Legal Responses to Housing Affordability in Australia

Legal Studies: Case Law