Search

Law schools are rethinking the form of instruction and the means of delivery, a discussion now at the fore of legal education. This pedagogical picture is not complete without understanding students' fidelity to the human and social experience of law school. To further understand student experiences, a voluntary online survey was distributed to 103 first-year law students. Our findings on the use of trigger warnings, the use of 100 percent final examinations, and the integration of articling and clinical-based skills in law school education present an opportunity for law teachers to reconsider curriculum reform and conventional legal education. Legal curricula ought to contextualize law in its social impacts and this includes recognizing student experiences of trauma and vulnerability in the law classroom. Further, this recognition develops and supports important clinical skills, including participation, group work and deployment of empathy in legal settings. By recognizing student sensitivity and by implementing multiple assessments and skills-based learning and training, we argue that educators and students can work together towards common goals which benefit both the teaching and the learning of law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the fall of 2019, peremptory challenges were abolished in Canadian jury trials, much to the chagrin of many criminal law practitioners. Ostensibly, Bill C-75 was passed partially in response to the fallout stemming from the controversial R v Stanley verdict, a case in which peremptory challenges were allegedly used to remove any and all jurors who appeared to be Indigenous. Bill C-75 has not been without its own controversy, however. Commentary by both legal professionals and scholars indicates that Bill C-75 - though well intentioned - may ultimately do more harm than good for the very communities it purports to serve. Numerous criminal law practitioners were quick to criticize Bill C-75 as being knee-jerk, reactionary, and, ultimately, a highly political move that would do little to address the systemic issues plaguing the criminal justice system in Canada, particularly for racialized and marginalized communities. The paper below endeavours to give voice to these perspectives. Following an extensive review of the history of peremptory challenges and a general history of jury work, we share the results of our survey in which Canadian Crown and defence counsel were asked to share their opinions on the removal of peremptory challenges. The responses indicate that, overall, surveyed Crown and defence counsel are concerned that the elimination of peremptory challenges will have a negative impact on jury trials in Canada. We explore the reasons for these fears in reviewing their responses to the survey. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]