To what extent does random selection of jury members create bias and
would jury selection provide a solution?
The theory behind the UK system of random selection is based on many
assumptions. Firstly that randomness produces a representative sample
of the population, which will provide verdicts, representative of the
general public. It is assumed that if one juror has an apparent
prejudice, then those in other jurors will counter it and so bias does
not occur in this system[1]. Another assumption is that having “12
good men and true”[2] randomly selected into the jury “strengthens the
legitimacy of the legal system.”[3] However, it is clear that
randomness does not provide representativeness and not all jurors are
good and true. By implication a random sample can be all white, all
black, all Asian, all young, all Liberals or all members of the BNP[4]
and so not representative of the population. Penny Darbyshire wrote
an article in 1991[5] stating that instead of being representative,
the jury was actually “an anti-democratic, irrational and haphazard
legislator, whose erratic and secret decisions run counter to the rule
of law”[6] and by overlooking the law in an attempt to gain justice,
innocent people may end up being convicted. This is undoubtedly going
to produce biases in the way jurors produce a verdict. R v Ponting
(1985)[7] proved that when juries were convinced about what justice
was meant to look like, they were unlikely to listen to what the judge
has ruled and so rule as to what they believe is right. This essay
will examine the biases created by random selection and decide whether
jury selection would prove to be...
... middle of paper ...
...riminal Law Review (1991, Crim LR 740) as cited
by Slapper, G. and Kelly, D., The English Legal System, 7th Edition,
(London: Cavendish, 2004).
[6] Id.
[7] Supra at note 2. The defendant was charged under the Official
Secrets Act 1991 and although the judge ruled that there was no valid
defence the jury refused to convict him.
[8] http://www.hayesfield.co.uk/law/Revision/Juries.doc
[9] Lord Denning, What’s Next in Law? As cited by
http://www.hayesfield.co.uk/law/Revision/Juries.doc
[10] Supra at note 2.
[11] Ingam, T., The English Legal Process, 10th Edition (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2004) p.224.
[12] Supra at note 2, p.1.
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] Spencer, J. R., Jackson’s Machinery of Justice, 8th Edition,
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
[16] Id.
The movie Runaway Jury starts with a shooting in a business office. The movie then continues to people receiving jury summons and people taking pictures of them. It goes on to show Rankin Fitch and the defense committing electronic surveillance during the jury selections. This movie shows how Fitch and the defense attempt to influence the jury to vote for the defense. The movie continuously shows a person by the name of “Marlee” who talks to Fitch and Rohr trying to persuade them to pay her in order for the jury to be “swayed” their way. “Marlee” is Nick Easter’s girlfriend. As the movie progresses, the viewer realizes that Nick was pretended to get avoid jury duty in order to secure a spot in the jury. The movie ends with the jury voting against the gun company and then Nick and “Marlee” blackmailing Fitch with a receipt for $15 million and they demand that he retire immediately. They inform him that the $15 million will benefit the shooting victims in the town of Gardner.
This chapter is mainly devoted to the jury selection process and how it is taken care
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
The reason for these reactions is due to the fact that jurors are all influenced by different decision making abilities. These abilities can be shaped by varying emotional reactions to case information, jurors intelligence, their abilities to retain certain information, and of course their own personal and cultural views. As a result, jurors establish different perceptions and opinions despite all the jurors being given the same information. The procedure of applying a juror’s perception of certain views on life and how those views apply to the facts and information being presented to them in the case are the main forces behind each juror’s individual conclusions on the case. Jurors seem to rarely alter their opinions on how they feel about a certain case, but they may change their minds on how things should have been presented to them. This can be observed in the participation and comments of the jurors in this certain case.
The jury in a trial is selected to examine certain facts and determine truth based only upon the evidence presented to them in court. It is assumed that the jurors will judge fairly and without any personal bias. In spite of this assumption people will be people and in some cases, logic and emotion will collide. An excellent example that shows precisely what I’m talking about is in the movie Twelve Angry Men. Twelve men who initially are strangers to each other have the fate of a young boy resting in the palm of their hands. In the beginning everyone is convinced he is guilty except one who has one reasonable doubt in his mind. The single man on his own was able to convince each of them by using logic to examine the testimony of each witness. After a few hours of reasoning the jurors were eventually won over allowing the facts to overcome their personal issues. During the arguments in the jury room the issues of race, age, social class, personal experience and stereo types are discussed a number of times. I presume it is because those are the personal issues that people have and sometimes that is what they base their judgment on. When you are in a jury you have the responsibility of setting all of that aside. Through the reasoning of the not-guilty voters the guilty voters are slowly realizing that despite their passed and personal reasons they have to take into consideration the more important actual events that occurred. Part of the problem the jurors are...
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.
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.
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...
... In a speech to the House of Lords in 1844 Lord Denman remarked: 'Trial by jury itself, instead of being a security to persons who are accused, will. be a delusion, a mockery and a snare. The question of juror competence remains a recurrent feature in both the research and policy. literature (Horowitz et al., 1996; Penrod & Heuer, 1997). Indeed, in the. 1998 the Home Office invited commentary on whether an alternative to the traditional jury system was appropriate for cases of serious fraud.
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
The book “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is a book about twelve jurors who are trying to come to a unanimous decision about their case. One man stands alone while the others vote guilty without giving it a second thought. Throughout the book this man, the eighth juror, tries to provide a fair trial to the defendant by reviewing all the evidence. After reassessing all the evidence presented, it becomes clear that most of the men were swayed by each of their own personal experiences and prejudices. Not only was it a factor in their final decisions but it was the most influential variable when the arbitration for the defendant was finally decided.
How Does the Jury Process Reflected in the Novel Compare/Contrast to That of Today: An Annotated Bibliography The novel To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee is based in the 1930s in Alabama where an African American man is accused of raping and abusing a white woman. Tom Robinson is wrongly convicted and ends up dying for a crime he did not commit. Robinson dying for something he did not commit is common today because of all the racial prejudice, hatred, and the unfair trials that are given to people of minority. The events that happened, especially the jury process and trial, in the novel are similar to some of the events happening in the world today.
As indicated by Duhaime 's Law , Jury Nullification implies the startling force of a jury to issue in opposition to the law as connected to the demonstrated truths. Jury Nullification is lawful in the United States. Jury is a gathering of residents in which they are called members of the jury. They will arbitrarily specifically and pick the jury in which they will be given the ability to choose. Jury invalidation happens when a jury returns a decision of "Not Guilty" regardless of its conviction that the respondent is liable of the infringement charged (Linder,2001). The jury as a result invalidates a law that it accepts is either corrupt or wrongly connected to the litigant whose destiny they accused of choosing (Linder,2001). Jury invalidation is optional act, in which isn 't a legitimately authorized capacity of the jury. At the point when managing jury invalidation it is essential to chat on the historical backdrop of American utilize, the advantages and disadvantages, also practice the force of the jury. Jury invalidation occurred in 1735 which was the most celebrated case, it additionally was practices in the mid 1800s, mid 1800s, and of the 1930 in which numerous juries rehearsed invalidation.
How do we know that every time we go into the courtroom for a crime that we have committed we are going to receive a fair trial? How are we supposed to know that each person in there will not already have an opinion? Over the years there have been many different court cases that were decided on what color you were. An example of this is, a white man was a juror in a black man’s case where he killed his wife and his kids, he said that since the man was black he wanted to give him the death penalty. Is this the type of person you would want in your jurors, already having an opinion before you even begin? This is constantly happening all over the United States in court rooms. No matter what happens though people will always have an opinion no matter what. There is no way to change that. What we can change though is having people on the jury that understand what you have been through. This is one of the biggest problems when it comes to court rooms. We need to make sure everyone is given a fair trial, no matter what the circumstance are, and what the ruling 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