Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The importance of the jury system
The importance of the jury system
Social influence in social psychology
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The importance of the jury system
Serving on a jury is a civic duty and an American tradition. However, some people view jury duty as a chore or as an event that negatively interrupts their lives. Some independent studies have shown that even jury duty has a devastating effect on married life. Due to this and other extraneous situations, there are only a few people who actually want to serve on a jury. This may lead to efforts by potential jurors to, in some way get out of their duty in a jury. What we know of as the current jury duty system should be changed so citizens are not forced to serve in this capacity and can still be regarded as a responsible civilian. As per the status quo, a trial jury is a constitutional right, a jury of ones peers or equals. However, ordinary people with little or no formal knowledge of the law should not be allowed to make a decision that would change a person's life.
In order to be seated as a juror, a variety of trial lawyers will ask questions to each perspective juror. If the juror seems to fit the profile of the "perfect juror," it is likely that in the current system that this person will sit on the jury. More often than it should, this means that because someone has the same beliefs as the trial lawyers, they will be selected because they will most likely be sympathetic to the correct client. Even though most of the time it is the evidence that convicts, the law should also be considered when jury reaches a verdict. It is a struggle to have Twelve people, with different personalities and beliefs come to a just vote for conviction or acquittal, especially with little to no background in the practice of law.
The current system has many unforeseen flaws. It is not the best. It is possible for jurors to lie so...
... middle of paper ...
...capable, cannot acquit himself of judging amiss." (John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding) In this quote, British poet John Locke expresses strong feelings also expressed in Matthew 7:1 of the Bible: "Judge not, that ye be not judged." Although both are writing from slightly different viewpoints, and express their feelings in slightly different ways, they are expressing the common concern similar to many throughout the history of mankind. Each man's fate should not lie at the feet of another man's opinion. All of history must answer for the actions surround decisions made, good and bad, that effects the lives of those closest to these choices. This punishment or reward will so far surpass any manmade idea of correctional auctions. Take heed, and understand the consequences of all auctions. Every choice has a consequence. What will yours be?
There are quite a few specific factors that affect whether the minority can influence the majority’s opinion. For example, when Juror #9 becomes an ally of support for Juror #8 in his defection from the majority consensus. Although Juror #8 may have started with only one ally, gradually he gained support from other jury members. Another important factor in the power of minority influence (Myers, 298) is the consistency of the viewpoint. Juror #8 never ‘flip-flops’, proponents of the minority position must stand firm against the pressure to conform. Even when Juror #8 is taunted by his fellow jurors after voting not-guilty in the initial vote he stands firm on his position and resists the pressure to conform. Furthermore, high self-confidence and self-assurance improves the position of the minority. Juror #8 presented firm and forceful arguments without being overbearing. He justifies his not-guilty vote by saying, “I just think we owe him a few words, that's all.” In the film, there is also a point in the discussion where Juror #6 defends those who voted not-guilty from the bullying, shouting, and name-calling from the other jurors. Throughout the film, Juror #3 is a bully, a specific example of insulting nature it seen in the film when another not-guilty ballot is received and he attacks Juror #5. He shouts, “Brother, you really are somethin'. You sit here vote guilty like the rest of us, then some golden-voiced preacher starts tearing your poor heart out about some underprivileged kid, just couldn't help becoming a murderer, and you change your vote. Well, if that isn't the most sickening - *why don't you drop a quarter in his collection box?” his criticisms of the other jurors does not sway people to his side. In reality, when a minority gathers strength people feel freer to think outside the box without the fear
Beverly, I am also a proponent of the United States developing a system of professional jurors. I also believe it would cut down on biased opinions and help rebuild people’s faith in our criminal justice system. In addition to the points you made, I believe professional jurors also would alleviate the process of the prosecution and defense counsel being able to stack the jury pool with individuals favorable to them. Although the U.S. is a country that is for the people, many citizens don’t want to set on a panel of jurors to determine the fate of an individual they do not know (Weigman, 2011). The main reasons for this is because, it causes them to be pulled away from their livelihoods, which for many encompasses work and family. Lastly,
There are hundreds of Americans who are selected for jury duty every day. Just like the characters many of them believe jury duty is a major conflict in their lives. They may say they do not have time to participate, which may be true, but the law will make sure you have time. As always, life and time keep going, and nobody wants to miss it. No one prefers to sit in court when they can be doing something productive but it is not going to kill them. Everyone deserves to have a jury hear them and surely they would want that for themselves.
We are all different. We are all at least biased on one topic. Some people just look at the surface, while others dig deeper into the facts that were given. Reginald Rose demonstrated these points beautifully in 12 Angry Men. All of the Jurors bring a special part of their personality to the jury room, which is the beauty of having a jury. All of the jurors are different in their own unique way,
First, when individuals are appointed for a jury, several individuals will do anything to not be selected for the trial. For instance, my father has conveyed he was indisposed or he could not afford to miss work. Moreover, most individuals do not perceive being a juror as an honor being as a citizen, instead they see it as a burden. A substantial influence on this position is the remuneration, because individuals are missing work to serve. On average, an individual who is selected to be a juror makes about 30 to 40 dollars a day, a fraction of when he or she is working. For this
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
“Is the jury system still a good idea?” Is a question heavily discussed among all people. No, the jury system is no longer a good idea for trying cases. To begin with, the act of juror selection is tricky and can heavily sway the verdict. There are too many issues such as personal beliefs, personal experiences and mental health. Second ,those selected are subjected to unfavorable conditions such as confinement, time constraints and having to reach a unanimous verdict. And lastly, maintaining an untainted jury is becoming more difficult because of resources like television, newspapers and internet.
Hundreds of years ago, the jury system arose in England. A ruler named King George soon took away the right for people to have a trial by jury, which is ordinary citizens drawn to help decide a case based on presented evidence. This made many Americans angry and upset for what he had taken from them. The US Constitution guaranteed the right to have trial by jury, which the founders made sure of that and also is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. It was listed in the Declaration of Independence as a reason for the American colonist to separate from Great Britain. Having jury duty helps serve as a responsibility for the American citizens to help repay the government for the things they do and protection they provide. Even though this is a good
This trial is known for the first use of jury consultants. The 2 brothers were blamed of plotting to plan a brutal manifestations against the Vietnam War. The defense attorneys determined that in order to have the most excellent jury possible they should survey people. They need qualified people as jurors. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania is the site of the trial. The reason of polling was to decide which probability groups would likely be concerned about their clients. In a suitable way, the defense was very favorable in having a jury selected that expressed by blue collar workers who would likely not have graduated from college. There are two kinds of techniques jury consultants use they are pretrial research and they do when the trial takes place. The effortless research is this category is mental outlook surveys administered in phone or in person, this was done in the Berrigan trial. [Use of Jury Consultants. (n.d.)]. Another example of a jury consultant or trial consultant would the Casey Anthony case. The trial consultant (Richard Gabriel) had his hands full. He managed a community mental outlook survey to evaluate public assumptions about the case. He wanted to determine what type of juror might open-minded enough to consult a dissimilar outlook on Anthony’s crime. The jury consultant was trying to find jurors that wasn’t biased. They wanted to seek jurors who would set aside their emotions and reason rationally. They wanted the jurors to conscientiously attend to the judge’s directions about the appropriate rules and laws. [Greene, E., & Heilbrun, K. (2013), pg 284]. Another example of a jury consultant would be in the O.J. Simpson trial. The defense team for the Simpson trial has hired a jury consultant to design a questionnaire and to help on selecting a jury favorable to Mr. Simpson. [Simpson Defense Team Hires Jury Consultant. (1994, August 10)]. The jury consultant will prepare
From conception in the Magna Carta 1215, juries have become a sacred constitutional right in the UK’s justice system, with the independence of the jury from the judge established in the R v. Bushel’s case 1670. Although viewed by some as a bothersome and an unwelcomed duty, by others it is perceived to be a prized and inalienable right, and as Lord Devlin comments ‘ trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution : it is the lamp that shows freedom lives.’ It is arguable that juries bring a ‘unique legitimacy’ to the judicial process, but recently it seems that their abolition may be the next step forward for the UK in modernising and making the judicial system more effective. Many argue that jurors lack the expertise and knowledge to make informed verdicts, along with views that external forces are now influencing juries more heavily, especially after the emergence of the internet and the heavy presence it now has on our lives. Yet, corruption within the jury system is also internal, in that professionals and academics may ‘steamroll’ others during deliberations about the case. These factors, coupled with the exorbitant costs that come along with jury trials creates a solid case for the abolition of juries. On the other hand though, the jury system carries many loyal supporters who fear its abolition may be detrimental to society. Academics and professionals such as John Morris QC state that; 'it may well not be the perfect machine, but it is a system that has stood the test of time.’ Juries ensure fair-practice within the courtroom, and although controversial, they have the power to rule on moral and social grounds, rather than just legal pre...
Some of the people in the world always ask themselves this question when in the court room “ WHY DID OUR FOUNDING FATHERS EXPECT CITIZEN JURIES TO JUDGE OUR LAWS AS WELL AS THE GUILT OF THE INDIVIDUAL ?” Well the answer is really simple its Because: "If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen's safeguard of liberty." (1788) (2 Elliots Debates, 94, Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267) "Jury nullification of law", as it is sometimes called, is a traditional American right defended by the Founding Fathers. Those Patriots intended the jury serve as one of the tests a law must pass before it assumes enough popular authority to be enforced. Thus the Constitution provides five separate tribunals with veto power -- representatives, senate, executive, judges and jury -- that each enactment of law must pass before it gains the authority to punish those who choose to violate it.
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
Jury duty is a civic duty meaning that it is required to be completed by a selected individual. Jury duty is used to ensure that justice is done throughout each city. Although justice is important to be served, those that are chosen to serve jury duty are forced to miss work and many local jobs do not provide pay for this missing day or days. Failure to appear for jury duty without a legit excuse will result in licit punishment. Obeying the law is also a civic duty which is pretty much common sense because the better our society follow the rules, the more civilized and productive our communities could be.
Mention the pros and cons of our jury system and possible alternatives of it. Also, identify the group dynamics of the jury members
We are very fortunate to live in a country where democracy is how we conduct our way of life. One of the great advantages of living here is that if someone is convicted of a crime that innocent until proven guilty. The hope and mission of our judicial system is to correctly convict the people who actually committed the crime. To prove their guilt while also making sure we are not convicting an innocent person. However, our system is not perfect and there are some chinks in our armor. Unfortunately, since jurors are just people and not computers or machines mistakes can be made. When putting your life in another person’s hands such as a juror you hope for the best, but that is not always enough. Sometimes there are certain variables, which