Hi all,

These are the first two paragraphs of my oral presentation. In the opening paragraph, my aim is to show the audience that the issue is controversial and recent. In the second paragraph, I wanted to identify what the issue is and describe the main characteristics of the issue from the viewpoints of the community, victims and defendants. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Emotion: smile

Since its first use in New South Wales almost two hundred years ago, the jury system has long been a much debated aspect of the criminal justice system. With the latest reform being in November this year, the jury system has once again sparked discussions of its value in achieving justice amid competing interests within the community.

The issue at hand is really whether the jury system in our criminal justice framework serves the purpose of delivering justice effectively and efficiently. This issue of the jury system has attracted many conflicting opinions from the community, the victims and the defendants. The cost of running the jury system amounted to over nine million dollars last year. The general public is most concerned by these annual expenses, as confirmed by the Institute of Criminology. Among those working within the criminal justice system, most agree the jury is able to deliver justice, although some, like crown prosecutor Christopher Maxell, believe that ‘justice would not suffer by abolishing juries and having judge-alone trials’. Yet the notion that the defendant should be tried by his or her peers remains central to the rights of the defendant. On the other hand, victims of crime assistance league has stressed the trauma that victims endure in prolonged jury trials especially in assault and sexual assault cases where victims testimonies constitute much of the evidence presented.

Thank you

PBF
1 2 3
Hi,
These are the first two paragraphs of my oral presentation. In the opening paragraph, my aim is to show the audience that the issue is controversial and recent. In the second paragraph, I wanted to identify what the issue is and describe the main characteristics of the issue from the viewpoints of the community, victims and defendants. Any comments would be greatly appreciated.

Since its first use in New South Wales (<<< I find this hard to believe. See comments below.) almost two hundred years ago, the jury system has long been a much debated aspect of the criminal justice system. With the latest reform being in November this year, the jury system has once again sparked discussions of its value in achieving justice amid competing interests within the community.

The issue at hand is really whether the jury system in our criminal justice framework serves the purpose of delivering justice effectively and efficiently. This issue of the jury system has attracted many conflicting opinions from the community, the victims and the defendants. The cost of running the jury system (do you need to say in which country?) amounted to over nine million dollars last year. The general public is most concerned by these annual expenses, as confirmed by the Institute of Criminology. Among those working within the criminal justice system, most agree the jury is able to deliver justice, although some, like crown prosecutor Christopher Maxell, believe that ‘justice would not suffer by abolishing juries and having judge-alone trials’. Yet the notion that the defendant should be tried by his or her peers remains central to the rights of the defendant. On the other hand, the Victims of Crime Assistance League has stressed the trauma that victims endure in prolonged jury trials, especially in assault and sexual assault cases where victims' testimonies constitute much of the evidence presented. (So it would be better if victims just don't testify at all? Tough on the defendant, though. So a judge-only trial would differ in ways other than the simple absence of a jury?)

The English seems OK.

Is one central concern about juries the fact that testimony amd legal issues can sometimes be very complex?

Juries can reflect community opinion. Here's an example from Canada. Dr. Henry Morgentaler violated Canada's abortion law. Despite this, he was acquitted by a Quebec jury. This set in motion a whole series of events that resulted in that law being abolished.

Jury System:The origins of the Jury system are up for debate; however it may be said to be founded in the Frankish inquest, and transplanted into England by the Norman Kings. It was meant to replace rather dubious and barbaric methods of trial, such as Trial by Ordeal, or Trial by Combat. Today, the jury does not know beforehand the facts of the case or the parties. This is in contrast to the way it was in the 12th century. Initially the Shire Reeve (Sheriff) would swear 4 knights, who would in turn selected 12 good knights who knew the litigant and the issues, and swore upon Oath to determine the issues.
http://www.canadalegal.info/ref-canada-criminal-law/canada-criminal-law-courts.html

And there's a lot more detail here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial#History_of_jury_trials

Best wishes, Clive
Thanks for your reply Clive.

I meant the first time it was used in New South Wales. I should have phrased it in another way, right? Also, I am focusing only on the jury system in New South Wales. 

I guess I should have posted the other paragraphs as well to give a bigger picture. I am also particular unsure of the way I link the sentences.

Following up from above. These are the third and fourth paragraphs. I am still working on the two remaining ones.

As with any other aspect of the criminal justice system, an evaluation of the jury system must be approached from the perspectives of the different groups in society. 

Perhaps one of the most valuable safeguard of justice the jury system possesses is its effectiveness in ensuring equity when considering individual cases. A fundamental principle of justice, equity is about achieving equal outcomes for individuals. Whilst a judge is bound by the principles in precedents and statue laws, the jury can take into consideration the “human” factor. The weight of broad community conscience is therefore reflected in the verdict because the jury, as a cross-section of the community, better represents the standards and expectations of the community than does a judge. As Justice Dunford explains, ‘I know some lawyers believe the juries can be swayed by emotion and red herrings, but after almost 18 years on the bench...there are only a handful of cases where I have personally disagreed with the jury’s decision, and even in those cases, I have been able to see a reasonable and logical reason why the jury has come to a different conclusion.’ Whilst critics have argued that this undermines consistency and equality on which the notion of precedent was built. It is believed that because the jury verdict incorporates equity through reflecting the community’s values and expectations, the criminal justice system continues to have the confidence of the community and in particular, that of the defendants. 

Thank you again

PBF
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Hi,
Oh, I see. You're in NSW.

As with any other aspect of the criminal justice system, an evaluation of the jury system must be approached from the perspectives of the different groups in society.

Perhaps one of the most valuable safeguards of justice the jury system possesses is its effectiveness in ensuring equity when considering individual cases. A fundamental principle of justice, equity is about achieving equal outcomes for individuals. Whilst a judge is bound by the principles in precedents and statute laws, the jury can take into consideration the “human” factor. The weight of broad community conscience is therefore reflected in the verdict because the jury, as a cross-section of the community, better represents the standards and expectations of the community than does a judge. As Justice Dunford explains, ‘I know some lawyers believe the juries can be swayed by emotion and red herrings, but after almost 18 years on the bench...there are only a handful of cases where I have personally disagreed with the jury’s decision, and even in those cases, I have been able to see a reasonable and logical reason why the jury has come to a different conclusion.’ Whilst critics have argued that this undermines the consistency and equality on which the notion of precedent was built, it is believed that because the jury verdict incorporates equity through reflecting the community’s values and expectations, the criminal justice system continues to have the confidence of the community and in particular, that of the defendants.

Sounds good to me.

Clive
Thank you for replying Clive. Emotion: smile

Yes, I'm in NSW. Emotion: smile

Just wondering. How should I go about improving the English of the first two paragraphs?

Thank you

PBF
Hi,
I thought that overall it was fine.

Clive
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.

Thank you

PBF
PeaceblinkfriendI realised that this thread should belong to 'ESL Essay, Writing World'. Could any moderators kindly relocate it?
Hi,

Done. Emotion: smile
Thanks Tanit. Emotion: smile

Hi all,

This is the second last paragraph of my oral presentation. I wanted to raise up another point which would show the jury system is effective although indicating the need for improved efficiency and the need for reforms. Again, the idea of perspectives is central to this evaluation. 

I would love to know what you think about it in terms of ideas, grammar, structure, phrasing or just any aspect of it. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Emotion: nodding

Moreover, the jury system is effective in upholding the accessibility of justice. Having individuals from the community as determiners of guilt ensures evidenced are presented in a comprehensible way to a layperson. In Kingswell V. The Queen, High Court Justice Deane stated that ‘a system of criminal law cannot be attuned to the needs of the people for whom it exists to serve unless its administration, proceedings and judgments are [understood] by both the accused and the general public and have the appearance, as well as the substance, of being impartial and just.’ Whilst victims of crime groups have pointed out that this unnecessarily lengthens court proceedings, however, as the Law Reform Commission has acknowledged, ‘the role of our judicial system is to dispense justice and not to dispatch business’. Nonetheless, recent reforms to the jury system have been focused on improving its resource efficiency and its effectiveness. In November this year, the Jury Amendment Act 2008 explicitly gave jurors the power to report any concerns of the conducts of fellow juries. This was in response to the abortion of a three month drug trial after some jurors were discovered playing Sudoku whilst evidence was being presented. Attempts to minimize hung juries and lengthy retrials have also prompted reforms to the Jury Act 1977, which has provided for majority verdict since 2006. However, the failure of the Jury Amendment Act 2004 to prevent jurors in Regina V. (against) Wood from planning a private inspection of The Gap, the crime scene, demonstrates the need for further reforms to the jury system.  

For convenience's sake, here are the three previous pharagraphs.

Since its first use in New South Wales almost two hundred years ago, the jury system has long been a much debated aspect of the criminal justice system. With the latest reform being in November this year, the jury system has once again sparked discussions of its value in achieving justice amid competing interests within the community.

The issue at hand is really whether the jury system in our criminal justice framework serves the purpose of delivering justice effectively and efficiently. This issue of the jury system has attracted many conflicting opinions from the community, the victims and the defendants. The cost of running the jury system amounted to over nine million dollars last year. The general public is most concerned by these annual expenses, as confirmed by the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. Among those working within the criminal justice system, most agree the jury is able to deliver justice, although some, like crown prosecutor Christopher Maxell, believe that ‘justice would not suffer by abolishing juries and having judge-alone trials’. Yet the notion that the defendant should be tried by his or her peers remains central to the rights of the defendant. On the other hand, victims of crime assistance league has stressed the trauma that victims endure in length jury trials especially in assault and sexual assault cases.

As with any other aspect of the criminal justice system, an evaluation of the jury system must be approached from the perspectives of the different groups in society.

Perhaps one of the most valuable safeguards of justice the jury system possesses is its effectiveness in ensuring equity when considering individual cases. A fundamental principle of justice, equity is about achieving equal outcomes for individuals. Whilst a judge is bound by the principles in precedents and statute laws, the jury can take into consideration the “human” factor. The weight of broad community conscience is therefore reflected in the verdict because the jury, as a cross-section of the community, better represents the standards and expectations of the community than does a judge. As Justice Dunford explains, ‘I know some lawyers believe the juries can be swayed by emotion and red herrings, but after almost 18 years on the bench...there are only a handful of cases where I have personally disagreed with the jury’s decision, and even in those cases, I have been able to see a reasonable and logical reason why the jury has come to a different conclusion.’ Whilst critics have argued that this undermines the consistency and equality on which the notion of precedent was built, it is believed that because the jury verdict incorporates equity through reflecting the community’s values and expectations, the criminal justice system continues to have the confidence of the community and in particular, that of the defendants. 

Thank you 

PBF
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Show more