Golda your example of OJ Simpson’s case is great when looked at from a couple of angles. First, it is an example of an individual that was trialed and found innocent by a group of his peers. Our legal system states that one needs to be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the jury found issues and doubts within the prosecution’s case and acquitted Mr. Simpson. Public opinion sides with the statement that the outcome of Mr. Simpson’s trial was ridiculous, and that justice was not served. However, the judge in the trial (Mr. Ito) instructed the jury on what reasonable doubt is and how it affected the verdict they were about to make. We can argue that the system let a guilty man get away with a crime. On the other hand, we can
While having a judge may seem like it is more effective, while calculating time spent on the case, money used, and the education in the field of justice that a judge has, using a trial by jury is the best way to preserve the American ideal of democracy. In the Jury system mini Q document F, Mark twin mentions that the jury system doesn’t want educated people because they would make the trial too easy for one side. Rather than insulting the jury system it seems like this is more of a good thing because it shows that the jury system doesn’t want people who know too much about the subject already and could sway the decision based solely on their bias. Another way that the system is fair is the fact that rather than having one judge decide the fate of a person, rather it is 12 other citizens that have no ties to the person. In the Jury system mini Q document B The letter states “a reasoned and professional judgment should be replaced by blanket verdicts or pretty well any twelve men and women … I had taken my leave of sense.” While this man is insulting the jury system what he says should still be looked at. The people that come together for a jury will have much less bias towards the accused person that a judge who has either seen the person before, or could just not be looking at it with multiple points of
found behind the guest house was proven by DNA testing to have O.J.'s blood and
In America, every individual has the right to a fair trial, but how fair is the trial? When an individual is on trial, his or her life is on the line, which is decided by twelve strangers. However, who is to say that these individuals take their role seriously and are going to think critically about the case? Unfortunately, there is no way to monitor the true intentions of these individuals and what they feel or believe. In the movie, Twelve Angry Men, out of the twelve jurors’ only one was willing to make a stance against the others, even though the evidence seemed plausible against the defendant. Nevertheless, the justice system is crucial; however, it is needs be reformed.
The New York Times bestseller book titled Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case examines the O.J. Simpson criminal trial of the mid-1990s. The author, Alan M. Dershowitz, relates the Simpson case to the broad functions and perspectives of the American criminal justice system as a whole. A Harvard law school teacher at the time and one of the most renowned legal minds in the country, Dershowitz served as one of O.J. Simpson’s twelve defense lawyers during the trial. Dershowitz utilizes the Simpson case to illustrate how today’s criminal justice system operates and relates it to the misperceptions of the public. Many outside spectators of the case firmly believed that Simpson committed the crimes for which he was charged for. Therefore, much of the public was simply dumbfounded when Simpson was acquitted. Dershowitz attempts to explain why the jury acquitted Simpson by examining the entire American criminal justice system as a whole.
On June 12,1994, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were murdered. Their bodies were discovered outside Nicole Simpson's condominium. Nicole Simpson was the estranged wife of the famous football player and T.V. star O.J. Simpson.
The O. J. Simpson Trial 1995 Professor Shea Criminology CCJ1001 July 26, 2017. It was the night of June 12, 1994, a woman and her long-time male friend were murdered in cold blood. The victims, Nicole Brown Simpson, her neck cut so savagely it almost severed from her body and Ronald Goldman, stabbed repeatedly, nearly 30 times. The accused, her ex-husband and football star, Orenthan James Simpson, better known as O.J. Simpson. During the trial, a trial that consisted of 150 witnesses, lasted 133 days and cost in the ball park of 15 million dollars, there were many questions asked and even more questions left unanswered (Douglas).
A crime being committed is the first event to initiate our criminal justice system. On June 12th 1994 a double murder was reported at the residence of Nicole Brown Simpson the ex-wife of the then beloved Orenthal James (OJ) Simpson. It was discovered that Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman had been brutally murdered and the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) began their investigation, this being the second step in our criminal justice system.
The subject of racial issues and inequality has been something that has affected human history and has impacted the world around us. For hundreds of years, racial equality has been an immense problem. Today, racial equality and injustice is being fought in many different aspects. One crucial event in the fight for equality came during the O.J. Simpson murder case. The beating of African-American Rodney King due to the actions of a police officer added to racial turmoil leading up to the murder of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. The murder case went on to portray many examples of racial tension going on around the world, some of those examples were used against the prosecution throughout the trial. This worldwide story became the focal point
Viewing a judge's sentence creates a divide in society. Will the accused be offered a fair trial? Could t...
They are the impartial third-party whose responsibility is to deliver a verdict for the accused based on the evidence presented during trial. They balance the rights of society to a great extent as members of the community are involved. This links the legal system with the community and ensures that the system is operating fairly and reflecting the standards and values of society. A trial by jury also ensures the victim’s rights to a fair trial. However, they do not balance the rights of the offender as they can be biased or not under. In the News.com.au article ‘Judge or jury? Your life depends on this decision’ (14 November 2013), Ian Lloyd, QC, revealed that “juries are swayed by many different factors.” These factors include race, ethnicity, physical appearance and religious beliefs. A recent study also found that juries are influenced by where the accused sits in the courtroom. They found that a jury is most likely to give a “guilty” verdict if the accused sits behind a glass dock (ABC News, 5 November 2014). Juries also tend to be influenced by their emotions; hence preventing them from having an objective view. According to the Sydney Morning Herald article ‘Court verdicts: More found innocent if no jury involved’ (23 November 2013), 55.4 per cent of defendants in judge-alone trials were acquitted of all charges compared with 29 per cent in jury trials between 1993 and 2011. Professor Mark Findlay from the University of Sydney said that this is because “judges were less likely to be guided by their emotions.” Juries balance the rights of victims and society to a great extent. However, they are ineffective in balancing the rights of the offender as juries can be biased which violate the offender’s rights to have a fair
A jury is a panel of citizens, selected randomly from the electoral role, whose job it is to determine guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented. The Jury Act 1977 (NSW) stipulates the purpose of juries and some of the legal aspects, such as verdicts and the right of the defence and prosecution to challenge jurors. The jury system is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society as members of the community ultimately decide whether the person is guilty or innocent. The creation of the Jury Amendment Act 2006 (NSW) enabled the criminal trial process to better represent the standards of society as it allowed majority verdicts of 11-1 or 10-2, which also allowed the courts to be more resource efficient. Majority verdicts still ensure that a just outcome is reached as they are only used if there is a hung jury and there has been considerable deliberation. However, the role of the media is often criticized in relation to ensuring that the jurors remain unbiased as highlighted in the media article “Independent Juries” (SMH, 2001), and the wide reporting of R v Gittany 2013 supports the arguments raised in the media article. Hence, the jury system is moderately effective in reflecting the moral and ethical standards of society, as it resource efficient and achieves just outcomes, but the influence of the media reduces the effectiveness.
...tood. This problem has persisted through many cases, clearly highlighting the lack of expertise of juries, and if they do not understand the process and basic rules, then they cannot be a reliable body in determining innocence. Jurors incapability of following evidence inevitably leads to guess work with jury’s finding defendants guilty because ‘he looked like he did it’ and ‘he looks like a nonce so he must of done it’. Moreover, cases have been reported of incredulous juries using absurd methods to ascertain a verdict, like in R v Young 1995, where a Ouija Board was used to determine if the defendant was guilty or not. It is clear that it would be better and far more effective to abolish the jury system, and leave the experts and qualified legal professionals to try defendants, as they understand the process and possess the expertise to make balanced decisions.
One of the most coveted trials in terms of popularity and media attention the O.J Simpson trial which took place between 1994 and concluded on October 2,1995 with O.J Simpson being acquitted of charges laid upon him during the Murder Trial Due to handling of physical evidence and questions over whether Mark Fuhrman planted the bloody glove at the scene to frame O.J. so in an attempt to understand how a deviation from standard operating procedures in the handling of physical evidence can affect the outcome of a criminal trial; One most first understand evidence and how to preserve it. When the crime scene technician took blood samples from Simpson’s Ford Bronco (1996) she used a cotton swab to take samples; but instead of using
The book Acquittal by Richard Gabriel states, “juries are the best judges in the system. They are not elected, they don't have the high-powered microscope of appellate review or the stern, disapproving-schoolmarm precedent looking over their shoulder, and they have no interest in the outcome of the case.” For this reason, we can come to the conclusion that the use of juries in a trial is the best for all involved in the legal system. While juries, “are the best judges in the system”, lawyers, jury consultants, and jury scientists are the reasons they are viewed this way. It is their job to make sure that not only their client, but everyone has a fair and unbiased trial.Making sure that “the best judges in the system” are fair and unbiased takes a lot of planning, research, and effort. You must research the jurors, understand how they think, what their morals are, and how they would view this case. “It is a constructed reality, cobbled together by shifting memories of witnesses, attorney arguments, legal instructions, personal experiences, and beliefs of jurors.”(Gabriel
I could cite several examples where I thought a judge’s or jury’s ruling was not fair, but I won’t because frankly, we’ve all seen those. I actually believe in our legal system, and I believe in justice. I believe in justice as an ideal that we strive for, and that is what it means to me. The legal system, when looked at closer, is not justice but instead judgment. You can be punished when found guilty, in a number of ways, but who knows if they’re “fair” punishments, it’s all a matter of opinion.