Assess the effectiveness of the criminal trial processes as a means of
achieving justice - 800 words
The criminal trial process is the primary means of achieving justice in our society. While
moderately efficient, its procedure and practices can be optimised to provide more
equitable justice for victims, the offender and society. The visible problems and nuances
with the existing system are the availability and access to legal representation and defences,
the role of the jury and plea bargaining, which can strengthen or restrict the effectiveness of
the criminal trial process for the interests of victims, the accused and society. The use of
defences in the criminal trial process assists the achievement of justice by equilibrating the
privileges of the accused, the victim and the community, while the opportunity for plea
bargaining can be seen to allow an offender to be subject to less jail time, which improves
justice for them, but may be unjust to the rights of the victim and uncertain for society. The
jury system upon which our legal system relies for its impartial stance can be flawed due to
external influences and personal biases of the jury. The clear flaws and benefits of the
existing practices that will be analysed shed light on the effectiveness of the contemporary
criminal trial process.
Under the adversarial system, the accused is entitled to expert legal representation in a
court of law. The barrister for the defendant acts in their best interests to either justify the
innocence of their client or maximally lessen their sentence. The lawyer has a number of
defences to criminal charges, which, depending on the situation, can be partial or complete.
Partial defences help the case for the charge to be reduced, while complete defences result
in the complete acquittal of the offender, both of which are legally valid justifications for the
committal of the crime from the legal perspective. Legal defences achieve justice by waiving
some legal accountability from specific cases or offenders, for instance for mentally ill or
insane people, offence as a result of involuntary action, self-defence, duress or provocation,
which results in a fairer case-by-case treatment of the law for offenders. The exemplary case
in this regard is the M’Naghten case (1843), who attempted to shoot the serving Prime
Minister of England, but missed him but shot the Prime Minister’s secretary, but was able to
successfully prove that he was suffering insane delusions of being persecuted by the
government, and was released based on the fact that he was unaware of the nature and the
immorality of his act. Thus, lacking the mens rea, he was unable to possess a murderous
intent as to the victim, which established a precedent permitting a defence of the
perpetrator’s actions and reducing the chances of an unfair conviction in the presence of
mental illness. As a result of this case, defence on the grounds of insanity is incorporated in
the Crimes Act 1900, and improves justice for the offender, allowing them a more individual
and fair trial with consideration of personal circumstances.
achieving justice - 800 words
The criminal trial process is the primary means of achieving justice in our society. While
moderately efficient, its procedure and practices can be optimised to provide more
equitable justice for victims, the offender and society. The visible problems and nuances
with the existing system are the availability and access to legal representation and defences,
the role of the jury and plea bargaining, which can strengthen or restrict the effectiveness of
the criminal trial process for the interests of victims, the accused and society. The use of
defences in the criminal trial process assists the achievement of justice by equilibrating the
privileges of the accused, the victim and the community, while the opportunity for plea
bargaining can be seen to allow an offender to be subject to less jail time, which improves
justice for them, but may be unjust to the rights of the victim and uncertain for society. The
jury system upon which our legal system relies for its impartial stance can be flawed due to
external influences and personal biases of the jury. The clear flaws and benefits of the
existing practices that will be analysed shed light on the effectiveness of the contemporary
criminal trial process.
Under the adversarial system, the accused is entitled to expert legal representation in a
court of law. The barrister for the defendant acts in their best interests to either justify the
innocence of their client or maximally lessen their sentence. The lawyer has a number of
defences to criminal charges, which, depending on the situation, can be partial or complete.
Partial defences help the case for the charge to be reduced, while complete defences result
in the complete acquittal of the offender, both of which are legally valid justifications for the
committal of the crime from the legal perspective. Legal defences achieve justice by waiving
some legal accountability from specific cases or offenders, for instance for mentally ill or
insane people, offence as a result of involuntary action, self-defence, duress or provocation,
which results in a fairer case-by-case treatment of the law for offenders. The exemplary case
in this regard is the M’Naghten case (1843), who attempted to shoot the serving Prime
Minister of England, but missed him but shot the Prime Minister’s secretary, but was able to
successfully prove that he was suffering insane delusions of being persecuted by the
government, and was released based on the fact that he was unaware of the nature and the
immorality of his act. Thus, lacking the mens rea, he was unable to possess a murderous
intent as to the victim, which established a precedent permitting a defence of the
perpetrator’s actions and reducing the chances of an unfair conviction in the presence of
mental illness. As a result of this case, defence on the grounds of insanity is incorporated in
the Crimes Act 1900, and improves justice for the offender, allowing them a more individual
and fair trial with consideration of personal circumstances.
