To What Extent Does the Criminal Trial Process Balance the Rights of Victims, offenders and Society?

To what extent does the criminal trial process balance the rights of victims, offenders and society?  

Juries, Defences, Charge Negotiation.

Juries:
L: Jury Act 1977 (NSW)
C: R v Wood (Used as negative)
M: 
D: BOCSAR 2008 - Only 55% of jurors understand what beyond reasonable doubt means
I: ICCPR 14

Charge Negotiation:

L: DPP Guidelines 2007
C: Nannette May (as a negative)
M: “Victims ignored in plea deals” (SMH, 2009) (Case)
D: Negotiating with the DPP Nick Cowdery
I: ICCPR

Despite some flaws, the Criminal Trial Process balances the rights of victims, offenders and society to a moderate extent, as it upholds the Rule of law, follows International Law obligations, and moderately achieves a fair balance. Rights of victims and offenders may include protection of privacy and fair trial, however, society values harsher punishment and protection, causing a conflict of needs. Despite this, Criminal Trial Process aspects of Juries, Defences and Charge Negotiation have been moderately effective in creating a balance.

Juries, as legislated under the Jury Act 1977 (NSW), moderately achieve a fair balance between the rights of victims, offenders and society through the use of community involvement, and the right to a fair trial. Firstly, the use of twelve randomly chosen jurors likely represents community views and values in a way that a single judge cannot provide, fulfilling the societal interest of involvement. Furthermore, the use of Juries as a central aspect of the Adversarial system of trial fulfils Article 14 of the ICCPR, stating “everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” In addition, as quoted by Nick Cowdery “ Juries perform a valuable role in connecting the community with criminal justice and in bringing into the process the community values and standards”.

Despite this moderate success, thematic and practical issues have arisen in relation to areas of bias and understanding. Firstly, as found in a 2008 BOCSAR Study, only 55% of jurors understood what ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ means, and only 67% of jurors understood anything the Judge said. Due the lack of understanding by the jury, the result has been that the right to a fair trial has been impeded on, and an unfair decision may be given. Furthermore, bias may occur during the trial in the form of social media, or as proven in R v Wood, jurors may attend the crime scene, basing their decision off their own research rather than evidence given in court. In addition, the rule of majority verdict in 2006 introduced the 11-1 rule, allowing one ‘rogue juror’ to disagree with the majority decision. While this is cost effective to society, it considerably impedes upon the individual right to a fair trial, as by one person disagreeing, there must be some reasonable doubt.

Furthermore, Defences are an aspect of the Criminal Trial Process of which have been moderately effective in balancing the rights of the victim, offender and society, by allowing the offender to provide a reason as to why they committed a crime. The use of defences has been successful in upholding ICCPR Article 17(3)(d), which states “to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing”. Furthermore, Defences may be partial, reducing a murder charge to manslaughter, or complete, completely acquitting a charge. Complete defences include Self defence, Mental Illness, Autonomy, Consent, Duress, Accident and Necessity. In specific, the defence of Self defence is a complete defence of which moderately balances the rights of the victim, offender and society. Legislated under Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Section 418, Self Defence allows the defendant to use reasonable force to protect themselves from an intruder, as highlighted in R v McInnes. Furthermore Self defence fulfils ICCPR Article 17, By allowing the offender to protect themself from an unlawful attack

However, the defence of