More handpicked essays just for you.
Arguments for and against used to critique the jury system
Arguments for and against used to critique the jury system
Arguments for and against used to critique the jury system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Is the American Jury System Still a Good Idea? The jury system has been a big part of the law system and people get called to be apart of it. Some say it is part of their duty as a citizen. Some don’t agree with having it and others like it. I believe it is not a good idea to have the jury system because more people are guilty with the jury then the bench, some don’t even pay attention, and it’s not fair. It has been proved that in 2010 more people were found guilty with having a jury then just having a bench system. In doc A it shows pie charts that say out of the 2,352 trails 2,066 were found guilty but the trails that had a bench trial were 394 trails, 257 were found guilty. This shows from a criminal point of view you have a better chance of being not guilty with the bench. If you really didn’t do what they are trying to say you did with the jury you could be found guilty for something you didn’t do. …show more content…
They are getting paid to sit there but we don’t know if they even are pay attention. In doc E, cartoon 1 it shows a picture of a jury and it shows what they all are thinking and the majority was thinking abou the trail but a handful were not thinking about it. Then they go back to vote and just say something because they didn’t even pay attention to the trail the whole time. They just sit there at act like they are listening. Why have them there and pay them if you don’t know if they are paying attention? Seems like a waste of money, time, and space. Also in doc D it shows what people think abou the trail and their opinions, one jury member is Angela and her only quote was “i can’t believe it, i’m shocked, oh my god. I can’t believe it.” this makes her seem like she wasn’t even paying that much attention because they other all have a lot to say about it and what they
The American Jury system has been around for quite some time. It was the original idea that the framers of the constitution had wanted to have implemented as a means of trying people for their illegal acts, or for civil disputes. The jury system has stood the test of time as being very effective and useful for the justice system. Now it has come into question as to if the jury system is still the best method for trials. In the justice system there are two forms of trials, one being the standard jury trial, where 12 random members of society come together to decide the outcome of something. The other option would be to have a bench trial. In a bench trial, the judge is the only one deciding the fate of the accused. While both methods are viable
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,
I believe that the jury system is an unfair system due to the limitations which are included during jury selection. Many professionals and groups of people are exempt from jury service: police or anyone dealing with the law (law student, lawyer, judges, assessors), anyone dealing in medicine (doctors, nurses), small or large business owners Pregnant women or women in general can claim special considerations, along with; teachers, accountants, ministers of religion, or generally anyone with a professional/education. So due to this, people who serve on a jury can be unemployed or part of a less educated and informed strata of society.
At trial, your life is in the palms of strangers who decide your fate to walk free or be sentenced and charged with a crime. Juries and judges are the main components of trials and differ at both the state and federal level. A respectable citizen selected for jury duty can determine whether the evidence presented was doubtfully valid enough to convict someone without full knowledge of the criminal justice system or the elements of a trial. In this paper, juries and their powers will be analyzed, relevant cases pertaining to jury nullification will be expanded and evaluated, the media’s part on juries discretion, and finally the instructions judges give or may not include for juries in the court.
In the United States, jury trials are an important part of our court system. We rely heavily on the jury to decide the fate of the accused. We don’t give a second thought to having a jury trial now, but they were not always the ‘norm’.
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
Today juries are much more diverse. Men, women, and people from diverse backgrounds are called to jury duty. Although the origin of the jury system is not clear, history has shown that William the Conqueror from Normandy introduced a similar system to England around 1066 CE (Judiciary of Vermont 1). After the American Revolutionary War, the jury system became the American ideal of justice. This essay will explore the history of the American jury system and illustrate how it has evolved over the course of the American history.
The jury system is essentially a descendant of Great Britain, the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians. Colonialism played a significant role in the development of the jury system globally. However, despite colonial influence, judicial systems across the world have taken their own way. As a result, the jury system has developed and changed to suit the needs and social conscience of different countries. Across the world, juries examine and decide the facts in a jury trial, the accuracy of the testimony, the guilt or innocence of criminal defendants, and liabilities in a civil litigation. Today, many countries such as Britain, United States, Brazil, Canada, Japan, Australia, France, German, India, and so on practice jury trials. These countries will be the issue of discussion in this paper.
The jury plays a crucial role in the courts of trial. They are an integral part in the Australian justice system. The jury system brings ordinary people into the courts everyday to judge whether a case is guilty or innocent. The role of the jury varies, depending on the different cases. In Australia, the court is ran by an adversary system. In this system “..individual litigants play a central part, initiating court action and largely determining the issues in dispute” (Ellis 2013, p. 133). In this essay I will be discussing the role of the jury system and how some believe the jury is one of the most important institutions in ensuring that Australia has an effective legal system, while others disagree. I will evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of a jury system.
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.
Historically, jury nullification has been in the U.S. sense the 1930s during the prohibition era when the transportation and sale of alcohol was unlawful. According to research, in previous times jurors have ignored unpopular laws that are applied by the government and still do today (When the Jury Ignores the Law, 2015). Giving jurors the right to exercise the power of jury nullification would be unlawful and injustice.
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.
So the first reading that convinced me having a jury system was a bad idea was document F. This was a passage from a book called Roughing It by Mark Twain. He talks about a murder that happened in Virginia and how a prominent banker and valued citizen was denied to be on the case because he knew about the case beforehand. This circulated in my head and did not make sense to me, the jury would rather be full of unvalued citizens who have no
The American Court System is an important part of American history and one of the many assets that makes America stand out from other countries. It thrives for justice through its structured and organized court systems. The structures and organizations are widely influenced by both the State and U.S Constitution. The courts have important characters that used their knowledge and roles to aim for equality and justice. These court systems have been influenced since the beginning of the United State of America. Today, these systems and law continue to change and adapt in order to keep and protect the peoples’ rights.
Pros of a jury system are that it allows a fair trial because jurors are randomly picked and come from many ways of life therefore each person can look at the situation in a different way. However, this can also be viewed as a con because if they all have the wrong preconception the jurors could possibly wrongly accuse the accused. This is shown in the movie as 11/12 jurors were about to send the kid to be executed without even discussing it. Another