Common Sense Justice

Commonsense justice and jury instructions are placed together to exemplify the informative and the response between the two; like the “analytic and beneficial”. Conjoining these two objectives, gives them “instructive potential for the law;” with the verdicts of not guilty, or hung juries, and jury nullification. These two objectives are “more likely the failure of jury instructions,” [slightly] than the “failings of jurors.”” (Norman J. Finkel, 2000).

Both of the objectives have a teaching method that gives jurors no time management and no chance to comprehend the differences. In the court system they have two laws; one is black-letter law, and commonsense justice. Black-letter law is a generally known law plus the most common, and it is what the legislators have endorsed, and it was intertwined through the “common-law cases and appeals decisions.” Black-letter law takes the instructions away from second guesses, and disagreements, and makes a set of clear and precise rules. (Norman J. Finkel, 2000).

Commonsense justice represents the citizens and what they think what is right and wrong; just and fair. The bias that jurors have inside themselves, they are taking those emotions to the jury box as they are about to judge the “defendant and the law.” What the citizens feel the law should be is what they think. (Norman J. Finkel, 2000). Instructions for jurors were “rewritten using psycholinguistic principles” which [illustrated] that their comprehension improved.” “Commonsense justice and jury instructions,” adjacent on an “instructive and reciprocating connection,” continued to demonstrate the studies of how citizens interpreted the instructions. (Norman J. Finkel, 2000)

If the instructions are not understandable ...

... middle of paper ...

...tz et. al. 1997). “The standard of proof in a trial is one such fundamental tenet of criminal law.” (Horowitz et. al. 1997).

Works Cited

Haney, Craig (1997). Commonsense Justice and Capital Punishment. Problematizing the “Will of

the People” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3(2/3), 303-337.

Horowitz, Irwin A. (1997). Reasonable Doubt. Instructions commonsense justice and standard

of proof. Psychology Public Policy, and Law, 3(2/3), 285-302

Norman, Finkel J. (2000). Commonsense Justice and Jury Instructions. Instructive and

Reciprocating Connections. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(3), 591-628

Norman, Finkel J. and Groscup, Jennifer L.. (1997). When Mistakes Happen. Commonsense

Ruels of Culpability. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3(1), 65-125.