A jury trial, or trial by jury, is a lawful proceeding in which a jury makes a decision or findings of fact. It is distinguished from a bench trial in which a panel of judges makes all decisions. Jury trials are used in a significant share of serious criminal cases in all common law lawful systems, juries or lay judges have been incorporated into the legal systems of many civil law countries for criminal cases. Only the United States makes routine use of jury trials in a wide variety of non-criminal cases. Other common law legal jurisdictions use jury trials only in a select class of cases that make up a tiny share of the overall civil docket, but true civil jury trials are entirely absent elsewhere in the world; some civil law jurisdictions, have arbitration panels where non-legally trained members decide cases in select subject-matter areas relevant to the arbitration panel members' areas of expertise. The availability of a trial by jury in American jurisdictions varies; because the United States legal system separated from that of the English one at the time of the American Revolution, the types of proceedings that use juries depends on whether such cases were tried by jury under English common law at that time rather than the methods used in English courts now.
For example, at the time, English "courts of law" tried cases of torts or private law for monetary damages using juries, but "courts of equity" that tried civil cases seeking an injunction or another form of non-monetary relief did not. As a result, this practice continues in American civil laws, but in modern English law, only criminal proceedings and some inquests are to be heard by a jury; the use of jury trials, which evolved within common law systems rather than civil law systems, has had a profound impact on the nature of American civil procedure and criminal procedure rules if a bench trial is contemplated in a particular case. In general, the availability of a jury trial if properly demanded has given rise to a system in which fact finding is concentrated in a single trial rather than multiple hearings, appellate review of trial court decisions is limited. Jury trials are of far less importance in countries. Ancient Athens had a mechanism, called dikastaí, to assure that no one could select jurors for their own trial.
For normal cases, the courts were made up of dikastai of up to 500 citizens. For capital cases—those that involved death, loss of liberty, loss of civil rights, or seizure of property—the trial was before a jury of 1,001 to 1,501 dikastai. In such large juries, they rule by majority. Juries were appointed by lot. Jurists cast a ceramic disk with an axle in its middle: the axle was either hollow or solid, thus the way they voted was kept secret because the jurists would hold their disk by the axle by thumb and forefinger, thus hiding whether its axle was hollow or solid. Since Periclean times, jurists were compensated for their sitting in court, with the amount of one day's wages; the institution of trial by jury was ritually depicted by Aeschylus in the Eumenides, the third and final play of his Oresteia trilogy. In the play, the innovation is brought about by the goddess Athena, who summons twelve citizens to sit as jury; the god Apollo takes part in the trial as the advocate for the defendant Orestes and the Furies as prosecutors for the slain Clytemnestra.
In the event the jury is split six to six, Athena dictates that in such a case, the verdict should henceforth be for acquittal From the beginning of the republic and in the majority of civil cases towards the end of the empire, there were tribunals with the characteristics of the jury, the Roman judges being civilian and not professional. Capital trials were held in front of juries composed of hundreds or thousands of people in the commitias or centuries, the same as in Roman trials. Roman law provided for the yearly selection of judices, who would be responsible for resolving disputes by acting as jurors, with a praetor performing many of the duties of a judge. High government officials and their relatives were barred from acting as judices, due to conflicts of interest; those found guilty of serious crimes were barred as were gladiators for hire, who were hired to resolve disputes through trial by combat. The law was as follows: "The peregrine praetor within the next ten days after this law is passed by the people or plebs shall provide for the selection of 450 persons in this State who have or have had a knight's census... provided that he does not select a person, or has been plebeian tribune, triumvir capitalis, military tribune in any of the first four legions, or triumvir for granting and assigning lands, or, or has been in the Senate, or who has fought or shall fight as a gladiator for hire... or, condemned by the judicial process and a public trial whereby he cannot be enrolled in the Senate, or, less than thirty or more than sixty years of age, or who does not have his residence in the city of Rome or within one mile of it, or, the father, brother, or son of any above-described magistrate, or, the father, brother, or son of a person, or has been a member of the Senate, or, overseas."
A Swabian ordinance of 1562 called for the summons of jurymen, various methods were in use in Emmendingen and Oberkirch. Hauenstein's charter of 1442 secured the right to be tried in all cases by 24 fellow equals, in Friburg the jury was composed of 30 citizens and councilors; the modern jury trial was first introduced in the Rhenish provinc
Probation in criminal law is a period of supervision over an offender, ordered by the court instead of serving time in prison. In some jurisdictions, the term probation applies only to community sentences, such as suspended sentences. In others, probation includes supervision of those conditionally released from prison on parole. An offender on probation is ordered to follow certain conditions set forth by the court under the supervision of a probation officer. During the period of probation an offender faces the threat of being incarcerated if found breaking the rules set by the court or probation officer. Offenders are ordinarily required to refrain from possession of firearms, may be ordered to remain employed or participate in an educational program, abide to a curfew, live at a directed place, obey the orders of the probation officer, or not leave the jurisdiction; the probationer might be ordered as well to refrain from contact with the victims, with potential victims of similar crimes, or with known criminals co-defendants.
Additionally, offenders can be subject to refrain from use or possession of alcohol and drugs and may be ordered to submit alcohol/drug tests or participate in alcohol/drug psychological treatment. Offenders on probation might be fitted with an electronic tag, which signals their movement to officials; some courts permit defendants of limited means to perform community service in order to pay off their probation fines. The concept of probation, from the Latin, probatio, "testing", has historical roots in the practice of judicial reprieve. In English common law, prior to the advent of democratic rule, the courts could temporarily suspend the execution of a sentence to allow a criminal defendant to appeal to the monarch for a pardon. Probation first developed in the United States when John Augustus, a Boston cobbler, persuaded a judge in the Boston Police Court in 1841 to give him custody of a convicted offender, a "drunkard", for a brief period and helped the man to appear rehabilitated by the time of sentencing.
Earlier, the practice of suspending a sentence was used as early as 1830 in Boston and became widespread in U. S. courts. At first, most notably Peter Oxenbridge Thatcher of Boston, used "release on recognizance" or bail and refrained from taking any further action. In 1878, the mayor of Boston hired a former police officer, the named "Captain Savage", to become what many recognize as the first official probation officer. By the mid-19th century, many Federal Courts were using a judicial reprieve to suspend sentence, this posed a legal question. In 1916, the United States Supreme Court, in the Killets Decision, held that a Federal Judge was without power to suspend a sentence indefinitely; this decision led to the passing of the National Probation Act of 1925, allowing courts to suspend the imposition of incarceration and place an offender on probation. Probation developed from the efforts of a philanthropist, John Augustus, who looked for ways to rehabilitate the behavior of criminals. Massachusetts developed the first statewide probation system in 1878, by 1920, 21 other states had followed suit.
With the passage of the National Probation Act on March 5, 1925, signed by President Calvin Coolidge, the U. S. Federal Probation Service was established. On the state level, pursuant to the Crime Control and Consent Act of 1936, a group of states entered into an agreement wherein they would supervise probationers and parolees who reside in each other's jurisdictions on each other's behalf. Known as the Interstate Compact For the Supervision of Parolees and Probationers, this agreement was signed by 25 states in 1937. By 1951, all the states in the United States of America had a working probation system and ratified the Interstate Compact Agreement. In 1959, the new states of Alaska and Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the territories of the Virgin Islands and American Samoa ratified the act as well. In the United States, most probation agencies have armed officers. In 39 states and federal probation, such arming is either mandated or optional. Arming is allowed in an increasing number of jurisdictions.
Probation officers are peace officers. Intensive probation, home detention, GPS monitoring, Computer Management These are intrusive forms of probation in which the offender is closely monitored, it is common for violent criminals, higher-ranking gang members, habitual offenders, sex offenders to be supervised at this level. Some jurisdictions require offenders under such supervision to waive their constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment regarding search and seizure, such probationers may be subject to unannounced home or workplace visits and the use of electronic monitoring or satellite tracking. Under terms of this kind of probation, a client may not change their living address and must stay at the address, known to probation. GPS monitoring and home detention are common in juvenile cases if the underlying delinquency is minor; some types of supervision may entail installing some form of monitoring software or conducting computer searches to ascertain what an offender is doing online.
Cybercrime specialist in corrections, Art Bowker, noted “This is an area more and more community corrections officers are going to have to get up to speed on, learning how to enforce conditions that restrict and/or monitor cyber offenders' computer and internet use.” Bowker observed "The use of social
European Convention on Human Rights
The European Convention on Human Rights is an international convention to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953. All Council of Europe member states are party to the Convention and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity; the Convention established the European Court of Human Rights. Any person who feels his or her rights have been violated under the Convention by a state party can take a case to the Court. Judgments finding violations are binding on the States concerned and they are obliged to execute them; the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe monitors the execution of judgements to ensure payment of the amounts awarded by the Court to the applicants in compensation for the damage they have sustained. The compensations imposed under ECHR can be large; the Convention has several protocols. The European Convention on Human Rights has played an important role in the development and awareness of Human Rights in Europe.
The development of a regional system of human rights protection operating across Europe can be seen as a direct response to twin concerns. First, in the aftermath of the Second World War, the convention, drawing on the inspiration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be seen as part of a wider response of the Allied Powers in delivering a human rights agenda through which it was believed that the most serious human rights violations which had occurred during the Second World War could be avoided in the future. Second, the Convention was a response to the growth of Communism in Central and Eastern Europe and designed to protect the member states of the Council of Europe from communist subversion. This, in part, explains the constant references to values and principles that are "necessary in a democratic society" throughout the Convention, despite the fact that such principles are not in any way defined within the convention itself. From 7 to 10 May 1948 with the attendance of politicians, civil society representatives, business leaders, trade unionist and religious leader was organised gathering-The "Congress of Europe" in Hague.
At the end of Congress the declaration and following pledge was issued which demonstrated the initial seeds of modern European institutes, including ECHR. The second and third Articles of Pledge stated: We desire a Charter of Human Rights guaranteeing liberty of thought and expression as well as right to form a political opposition. We desire a Court of Justice with adequate sanctions for the implementation of this Charter; the Convention was drafted by the Council of Europe after the Second World War in response to a call issued by Europeans from all walks of life who had gathered at the Hague Congress. Over 100 parliamentarians from the twelve member states of the Council of Europe gathered in Strasbourg in the summer of 1949 for the first meeting of the Council's Consultative Assembly to draft a "charter of human rights" and to establish a court to enforce it. British MP and lawyer Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, the Chair of the Assembly's Committee on Legal and Administrative Questions, was one of its leading members and guided the drafting of the Convention.
As a prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, he had seen first-hand how international justice could be applied. With his help, the French former minister and Resistance fighter Pierre-Henri Teitgen submitted a report to the Assembly proposing a list of rights to be protected, selecting a number from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights just agreed to in New York, defining how the enforcing judicial mechanism might operate. After extensive debates, the Assembly sent its final proposal to the Council's Committee of Ministers, which convened a group of experts to draft the Convention itself; the Convention was designed to incorporate a traditional civil liberties approach to securing "effective political democracy", from the strongest traditions in the United Kingdom and other member states of the fledgling Council of Europe, as said by Guido Raimondi, President of European Court of Human Rights: The European system of protection of human rights with its Court would be inconceivable untied from democracy.
In fact we have a bond, not only regional or geographic: a State cannot be party to the European Convention on Human Rights if it is not a member of the Council of Europe. So a non-democratic State could not participate in the ECHR system: the protection of democracy goes hand in hand with the protection of rights; the Convention was opened for signature on 4 November 1950 in Rome. It was ratified and entered into force on 3 September 1953, it is overseen and enforced by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, the Council of Europe. Until procedural reforms in the late 1990s, the Convention was overseen by a European Commission on Human Rights; the Convention is drafted in broad terms, in a similar manner to the English Bill of Rights, the U. S. Bill of Rights, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man or the first part of the German Basic law. Statements of principle are, from a legal point of view, not determinative and require extensive interpretation by courts to bring out meaning in particular factual situations.
As amended by Protocol 11, the Convention consists
A prison known as a correctional facility, gaol, detention center, remand center, or internment facility, is a facility in which inmates are forcibly confined and denied a variety of freedoms under the authority of the state. Prisons are most used within a criminal justice system: people charged with crimes may be imprisoned until their trial. In simplest terms, a prison can be described as a building in which people are held as a punishment for a crime they have committed. Prisons can be used as a tool of political repression by authoritarian regimes, their perceived opponents may be imprisoned for political crimes without trial or other legal due process. In times of war, prisoners of war or detainees may be detained in military prisons or prisoner of war camps, large groups of civilians might be imprisoned in internment camps. In American English and jail are treated as having separate definitions; the term prison or penitentiary tends to describe institutions that incarcerate people for longer periods of time, such as many years, are operated by the state or federal governments.
The term jail tends to describe institutions for confining people for shorter periods of time and are operated by local governments. Outside of North America and jail have the same meaning. Common slang terms for a prison include: "the pokey", "the slammer", "the can", "the clink", "the joint", "the calaboose", "the hoosegow" and "the big house". Slang terms for imprisonment include: "behind bars", "in stir" and "up the river"; the use of prisons can be traced back to the rise of the state as a form of social organization. Corresponding with the advent of the state was the development of written language, which enabled the creation of formalized legal codes as official guidelines for society; the best known of these early legal codes is the Code of Hammurabi, written in Babylon around 1750 BC. The penalties for violations of the laws in Hammurabi's Code were exclusively centered on the concept of lex talionis, whereby people were punished as a form of vengeance by the victims themselves; this notion of punishment as vengeance or retaliation can be found in many other legal codes from early civilizations, including the ancient Sumerian codes, the Indian Manusmriti, the Hermes Trismegistus of Egypt, the Israelite Mosaic Law.
Some Ancient Greek philosophers, such as Plato, began to develop ideas of using punishment to reform offenders instead of using it as retribution. Imprisonment as a penalty was used for those who could not afford to pay their fines. Since impoverished Athenians could not pay their fines, leading to indefinite periods of imprisonment, time limits were set instead; the prison in Ancient Athens was known as the desmoterion. The Romans were among the first to use prisons as a form of punishment, rather than for detention. A variety of existing structures were used to house prisoners, such as metal cages, basements of public buildings, quarries. One of the most notable Roman prisons was the Mamertine Prison, established around 640 B. C. by Ancus Marcius. The Mamertine Prison was located within a sewer system beneath ancient Rome and contained a large network of dungeons where prisoners were held in squalid conditions, contaminated with human waste. Forced labor on public works projects was a common form of punishment.
In many cases, citizens were sentenced to slavery in ergastula. During the Middle Ages in Europe, castles and the basements of public buildings were used as makeshift prisons; the possession of the right and the capability to imprison citizens, granted an air of legitimacy to officials at all levels of government, from kings to regional courts to city councils. Another common punishment was sentencing people to galley slavery, which involved chaining prisoners together in the bottoms of ships and forcing them to row on naval or merchant vessels. From the late 17th century and during the 18th century, popular resistance to public execution and torture became more widespread both in Europe and in the United States. Under the Bloody Code, with few sentencing alternatives, imposition of the death penalty for petty crimes, such as theft, was proving unpopular with the public. Rulers began looking for means to punish and control their subjects in a way that did not cause people to associate them with spectacles of tyrannical and sadistic violence.
They developed systems of mass incarceration with hard labor, as a solution. The prison reform movement that arose at this time was influenced by two somewhat contradictory philosophies; the first was based in Enlightenment ideas of utilitarianism and rationalism, suggested that prisons should be used as a more effective substitute for public corporal punishments such as whipping, etc. This theory, referred to as deterrence, claims tha
Courts of England and Wales
The Courts of England and Wales, supported administratively by Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service, are the civil and criminal courts responsible for the administration of justice in England and Wales. The United Kingdom does not have a single unified legal system—England and Wales has one system, Scotland another, Northern Ireland a third. There are exceptions to this rule. Additionally, the Military Court Service has jurisdiction over all members of the armed forces of the United Kingdom in relation to offences against military law; the Court of Appeal, the High Court, the Crown Court, the County Court, the magistrates' courts are administered by Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service, an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is the highest appeal court in all cases in England and Wales. Before the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 this role was held by the House of Lords; the Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal for devolution matters, a role held by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
The Supreme Court has a separate administration from the other courts of England and Wales, its administration is under a Chief Executive, appointed by the President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The Senior Courts of England and Wales were created by the Judicature Acts as the "Supreme Court of Judicature", it was renamed the "Supreme Court of England and Wales" in 1981, again to the "Senior Courts of England and Wales" by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. It consists of the following courts: Court of Appeal High Court of Justice Crown CourtThe Senior Courts of England and Wales, along with the Tribunals and other courts, are administered and supported by HM Courts and Tribunals Service; the Court of Appeal deals only with appeals from other tribunals. The Court of Appeal consists of two divisions: the Civil Division hears appeals from the High Court and County Court and certain superior tribunals, while the Criminal Division may only hear appeals from the Crown Court connected with a trial on indictment.
Its decisions are binding on all courts, including itself, apart from the Supreme Court. The High Court of Justice functions both as a civil court of first instance and a criminal and civil appellate court for cases from the subordinate courts, it consists of three divisions: the Chancery and the Family divisions. The divisions of the High Court are not separate courts, but have somewhat separate procedures and practices adapted to their purposes. Although particular kinds of cases will be assigned to each division depending on their subject matter, each division may exercise the jurisdiction of the High Court. However, beginning proceedings in the wrong division may result in a costs penalty; the formation of The Business and Property Courts of England & Wales within the High Court was announced in March 2017, launched in London in July 2017. The courts would in future administer the specialist jurisdictions, administered in the Queen's Bench Division under the names of the Admiralty Court, the Commercial Court, the Technology & Construction Court, under the Chancery Division's lists for Business and Insolvency, Intellectual Property and Trusts and Probate.
The Crown Court is a criminal court of both original and appellate jurisdiction which in addition handles a limited amount of civil business both at first instance and on appeal. It was established by the Courts Act 1971, it replaced the assizes whereby High Court judges would periodically travel around the country hearing cases, quarter sessions which were periodic county courts. The Old Bailey is the unofficial name of London's most famous criminal court, now part of the Crown Court, its official name is the "Central Criminal Court". The Crown Court hears appeals from magistrates' courts; the Crown Court is the only court in England and Wales that has the jurisdiction to try cases on indictment and when exercising such a role it is a superior court in that its judgments cannot be reviewed by the Administrative Court of the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court. The Crown Court is an inferior court in respect of the other work it undertakes, viz. inter alia, appeals from the magistrates’ courts and other tribunals.
The most common subordinate courts in England and Wales are County Court Family Court Magistrates' courts Youth courts The County Court is a national court with a purely civil jurisdiction, sitting in 92 different towns and cities across England and Wales. As from 22 April 2014 there has been a single County Court for England and Wales where there was a series of courts; the County Court is so named after the ancient sheriff's court held in each county, but it has no connection with it nor indeed was the jurisdiction of the county courts based on counties. A County Court hearing is presided over by either a district or circuit judge and, except in a small minority of cases such as civil actions against the police, the judge sits alone as trier of fact and law without assistance from a jury; the old county courts' divorce and family jurisdiction was passed on 22 April 2014 to the single Family Court. Until unification in 2014, county courts were local courts in the sense that each one has an area over
In law, a verdict is the formal finding of fact made by a jury on matters or questions submitted to the jury by a judge. In a bench trial, the judge's decision near the end of the trial is referred to as a finding. In England and Wales, a coroner's findings are called verdicts; the term "verdict", from the Latin veredictum means "to say the truth" and is derived from Middle English verdit, from Anglo-Norman: a compound of ver and dit. In a criminal case, the verdict, which may be either "not guilty" or "guilty"—except in Scotland where the verdict of "not proven" is available—is handed down by the jury. Different counts in the same case may have different verdicts. A verdict of guilty in a criminal case is followed by a judgment of conviction rendered by judge, which in turn be followed by sentencing. In U. S. legal nomenclature, the verdict is the finding of the jury on the questions of fact submitted to it. Once the court receives the verdict, the judge enters judgment on the verdict; the judgment of the court is the final order in the case.
If the defendant is found guilty, he can choose to appeal the case to the local Court of Appeals. A compromise verdict is a "verdict, reached only by the surrender of conscientious convictions upon one material issue by some jurors in return for a relinquishment by others of their like settled opinion upon another issue and the result is one which does not command the approval of the whole panel", and, as such, is not permitted. In a jury trial, a directed verdict is an order from the presiding judge to the jury to return a particular verdict; the judge orders a directed verdict after finding that no reasonable jury could reach a decision to the contrary. After a directed verdict, there is no longer any need for the jury to decide the case. A judge may order a directed verdict as to an entire case or only to certain issues. In a criminal case in the United States, once the prosecution has closed its case, the defendant may move for a directed verdict. If granted, the verdict will be "not guilty".
The prosecution may never seek a directed verdict of guilty, as the defendant has a constitutional right to present a defense and rebut the prosecution's case and have a jury determine guilt or innocence. In the American legal system, the concept of directed verdict has been replaced by judgment as a matter of law. A general verdict is one in which the jury makes a complete finding and single conclusion on all issues presented to it. First, the jury finds the facts, as proved by the evidence it applies the law as instructed by the court, it returns a verdict in one conclusion that settles the case; such verdict is reported as follows: "We the Jury find the issues for the plaintiff and assess his damages at one hundred thousand dollars." A sealed verdict is a verdict put into a sealed envelope when there is a delay in announcing the result, such as waiting for the judge, the parties and the attorneys to come back to court. The verdict is kept in the sealed envelope until court reconvenes and handed to the judge.
This practice is the default in many U. S. may be the preference of the judge involved. In English law, a special verdict is a verdict by a jury that makes specific factual conclusions rather than the jury's declaration of guilt or liability. For example, jurors may write down a specific monetary amount of damages, or a finding of proportionality, in addition to the jury's ultimate finding of liability. In the words of William Blackstone, "The jury state the naked facts, as they find them to be proved, pray the advice of the court thereon". Special verdicts are a jury control procedure intended to focus the jury's attention on the important questions at hand; the judge forced a special verdict in the famous 1884 case of R v. Dudley and Stephens, which established a precedent that necessity is not a defence to a charge of murder, but it is recommended that such verdicts should only be returned in the most exceptional cases. Special verdict forms are common in civil cases. However, many courts disfavour their use in criminal cases.
This is because juries traditionally have the power to issue a one- or two-word general verdict in criminal cases pronouncing a defendant "guilty" or "not guilty". By this means, criminal juries are never required to explain their verdicts; the right to issue a general verdict in criminal cases is thus considered one of the great protections of trial by jury. The jury has an historic function of tempering rules of law by common sense brought to bear upon the facts of a specific case. For this reason Justices Black and Douglas indicated their disapproval of special verdicts in civil cases. Virtual jury research Chisholm, Hugh, ed.. "Verdict". Encyclopædia Britannica. Cambridge University Press
In law, a trial is a coming together of parties to a dispute, to present information in a tribunal, a formal setting with the authority to adjudicate claims or disputes. One form of tribunal is a court; the tribunal, which may occur before a judge, jury, or other designated trier of fact, aims to achieve a resolution to their dispute. Where the trial is held before a group of members of the community, it is called a jury trial. Where the trial is held before a judge, it is called a bench trial. Hearings before administrative bodies may have many of the features of a trial before a court, but are not referred to as trials. An appellate proceeding is generally not deemed a trial, because such proceedings are restricted to review of the evidence presented before the trial court, do not permit the introduction of new evidence. Trials can be divided by the type of dispute at issue. A criminal trial is designed to resolve accusations brought against a person accused of a crime. In common law systems, most criminal defendants are entitled to a trial held before a jury.
Because the state is attempting to use its power to deprive the accused of life, liberty, or property, the rights of the accused afforded to criminal defendants are broad. The rules of criminal procedure provide rules for criminal trials. A civil trial is held to settle lawsuits or civil claims—non-criminal disputes. In some countries, the government can both be sued in a civil capacity; the rules of civil procedure provide rules for civil trials. Although administrative hearings are not ordinarily considered trials, they retain many elements found in more "formal" trial settings; when the dispute goes to judicial setting, it is called an administrative trial, to revise the administrative hearing, depending on the jurisdiction. The types of disputes handled in these hearings is governed by administrative law and auxiliarily by the civil trial law. Labor law is the body of laws, administrative rulings, precedents which address the legal rights of, restrictions on, working people and their organizations.
As such, it mediates many aspects of the relationship between trade unions and employees. In Canada, employment laws related to unionized workplaces are differentiated from those relating to particular individuals. In most countries however, no such distinction is made. However, there are two broad categories of labour law. First, collective labour law relates to the tripartite relationship between employee and union. Second, individual labour law concerns employees' rights through the contract for work; the labour movement has been instrumental in the enacting of laws protecting labour rights in the 19th and 20th centuries. Labour rights have been integral to the social and economic development since the industrial revolution. There are two primary systems for conducting a trial: Adversarial: In common law systems, an adversarial or accusatory approach is used to adjudicate guilt or innocence; the assumption is that the truth is more to emerge from the open contest between the prosecution and the defense in presenting the evidence and opposing legal arguments with a judge acting as a neutral referee and as the arbiter of the law.
In several jurisdictions in more serious cases, there is a jury to determine the facts, although some common law jurisdictions have abolished the jury trial. This polarizes the issues, with each competitor acting in its own self-interest, so presenting the facts and interpretations of the law in a deliberately biased way; the intention is that through a process of argument and counter-argument, examination-in-chief and cross-examination, each side will test the truthfulness and sufficiency of the opponent's evidence and arguments. To maintain fairness, there is a presumption of innocence, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution. Critics of the system argue. Further, the results are to be affected by structural inequalities; those defendants with resources can afford to hire the best lawyers. Some trials are—or were—of a more summary nature, as certain questions of evidence were taken as resolved. Inquisitorial: In civil law legal systems, the responsibility for supervising the investigation by the police into whether a crime has been committed falls on an examining magistrate or judge who conducts the trial.
The assumption is that the truth is more to emerge from an impartial and exhaustive investigation both before and during the trial itself. The examining magistrate or judge acts as an inquisitor who directs the fact-gathering process by questioning witnesses, interrogating the suspect, collecting other evidence; the lawyers who represent the interests of the State and the accused have a limited role to offer legal arguments and alternative interpretations to the facts that emerge during the process. All the interested parties are expected to co-operate in the investigation by answering the magistrate or judge's questions and, when asked, supplying all relevant evidence; the trial only takes place after all the evidence has been collected and the investigation is completed. Thus, most of the factual uncertainties will be resolved, the examining magistrate or judge will have resolved that there is prima facie of guilt. Critics argue that the examining magistrate or judge has too much power in that he or she will both investigate and adjudicate on the merits of the case.
Although lay assessors do sit as a form of jury to offer advice to the magistrate or judge at the conclusion of the trial, their role is subordinate. Further, because a professio