The Right to an Impartial Hearing Trumps the Social Imperative of Bringing Accused to Trial Even 'Down Under'
Graduate studies at Western
Criminal Law and Philosophy 4 (3):321-339 (2010)
|Abstract||Accused persons who are subjected to a saturation level of negative media coverage may be denied an impartial hearing, which is perhaps the most important aspect of the right to a fair hearing. Despite this, the courts have generally held that the social imperative of prosecuting accused trumps the interests of the accused. The justification for an impartial hearing stems from the repugnance of convicting the innocent. Viewed dispassionately, this imperative is not absolute, given that every legal system condones procedures which result in the conviction of some innocent people. While the importance of guarding against wrongful convictions has been overstated, the imperative to bring to trial all accused has been even more exaggerated. The legal system has displayed a capacity to deal with cases where the guilty walk free. The institutional integrity of the criminal justice system would be significantly compromised by convictions that are tarnished by pre-judgment. Confidence in the criminal justice system is more important than individual criminal accountability. The inability to receive an impartial hearing should result in a permanent stay. The only exception is where the alleged crime has the capacity to cause widespread fear or social unrest. This only applies in relation to serious acts of terrorism. This article focuses on recent legal fair trial developments in Australia, however, the analysis, reasoning and conclusion applies in relation to all jurisdictions where juries determine guilt and innocence.|
|Keywords||Right to impartial hearing Right to prosecute accused persons Fair hearing right prevails|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
James B. Johnston, The Bridge Connecting Pontius Pilate's Sentencing of Jesus to the New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission's Concerns Over Executing the Innocent: When Human Beings with Inherently Human Flaws Determine Guilt or Innocence and Life or Death.
Peter J. Taylor (1994). Shifting Frames: From Divided to Distributed Psychologies of Scientific Agents. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:304 - 310.
S. A. Farrar, Myths and Legends: An Examination of the Historical Role of the Accused in Traditional Legal Scholarship; a Look at the 19th Century.
Robert Batterman (1992). Quantum Chaos and Semiclassical Mechanics. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:50 - 65.
David Brick (2010). The Court of Public Opinion and the Practice of Restorative Ordeals in Pre-Modern India. Journal of Indian Philosophy 38 (1):25-38.
H. E. Baber (1987). How Bad Is Rape? Hypatia 2 (2):125 - 138.
Larry Cunningham (2005). The Innocent Prisoner and the Appellate Prosecutor: Some Thoughts on Post-Conviction Prosecutorial Ethics After Dretke V. Haley. Criminal Justice Ethics 24 (2):12-24.
P. X. Monaghan (2010). A Novel Interpretation of Plato's Theory of Forms. Metaphysica 11 (1):63-78.
Wallace N. Davidson, Dan L. Worrell & Chun I. Lee (1994). Stock Market Reactions to Announced Corporate Illegalities. Journal of Business Ethics 13 (12):979 - 987.
Dale Hample, Bing Han & David Payne (2010). The Aggressiveness of Playful Arguments. Argumentation 24 (4):405-421.
Added to index2010-09-13
Total downloads5 ( #170,048 of 722,946 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 722,946 )
How can I increase my downloads?