Jury Selection of the 1930’s was very racially bias and prejudice towards the African American race. Also they minimialized women's rights by not letting them participate in the jury.The jury selection process has changed vastly from the 1930’s until now, it is more complex and safe and open to all race and gender, people can’t just be on the jury there is a selection process for it.
Surprisingly you can get out jury selection easier than you would think. You can be excused for the following reasons. The care of an bedridden family member, if you have financial hardship, you have a health problem keeping you from serving jury duty, you are still a student. Also if you are away temporarily, you’re on vacation you have some kind of work hardship. Those reasons will get your jury duty postponed to another month. The jury selection process today is simple, but very thorough in it’s purpose. Which is to select a jury obviously. The jury selection process starts when their names are randomly drawn from voters lists and sometimes drivers lists. So virtually anyone above 18 can be chosen for jury duty. They then receive a questionnaire to decide whether or not they meet the legal requirements for jury duty. The individuals who receive these questionnaires are obligated to
First all ages & races would have been able to participate on the jury and been picked at random. It would’ve not just some racially bias people of the town that would just convict him anyway. There would be a process behind it of getting people from the town together and asking them questions that would subconsciously expose the extent if any of their racial or any type of bias. They would they strike the jurors they saw unfit for jury duty. Therefore there would have been a fair trial and I believe that Tom Robinson would have been found innocent in the rape of Mayella
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
Jury duty is the obligation to serve on a jury. There are many reasons for being excused if summoned, here are some: having no public or private transportation or having to exceed 1 ½ hours to travel to the trial (http://www.courti…); if you are under 18 or older than 70 (choose not to serve), or if you are not a US resident with a home in the state (http://www.cga …); if you cannot speak or understand English; or is a constitutional officer, a family support magistrate, a judge, or a member of the general assembly (http://www.cga …). After being selected for jury duty, one is at risk of jury tampering which is a crime where someone attempts to influence the jury via means other than those presented during the trial (http://le...
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.
This chapter is mainly devoted to the jury selection process and how it is taken care
Despite the efforts of lawyers and judges to eliminate racial discrimination in the courts, does racial bias play a part in today’s jury selection? Positive steps have been taken in past court cases to ensure fair and unbiased juries. Unfortunately, a popular strategy among lawyers is to incorporate racial bias without directing attention to their actions. They are taught to look for the unseen and to notice the unnoticed. The Supreme Court in its precedent setting decision on the case of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), is the first step to limiting racial discrimination in the court room. The process of selecting jurors begins with prospective jurors being brought into the courtroom, then separating them into smaller groups to be seated in the jury box. The judge and or attorneys ask questions with intent to determine if any juror is biased or cannot deal with the issues fairly. The question process is referred to as voir dire, a French word meaning, “to see to speak”. During voir dire, attorneys have the right to excuse a juror in peremptory challenges. Peremptory challenges are based on the potential juror admitting bias, acquaintanceship with one of the parties, personal knowledge of the facts, or the attorney believing he/she might not be impartial. In the case of Batson v. Kentucky, James Batson, a black man, was indicted for second-degree burglary and receipt of stolen goods. During the selection of the jury the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to strike out all of the four black potential jurors, leaving an all white jury. Batson’s attorney moved to discharge the venire, the list from which jurors may be selected, on the grounds that the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges violated his client’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to have a jury derived from a “cross-section of the community”(People v. Wheeler, 583 P.3d 748 [Calif. 1978]). The circuit court ruled in favor of the prosecutor and convicted Batson on both counts. This case went through the courts and finalized in the U.S. Supreme Court.
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
As long as you are a U.S. citizen and of eighteen years of age, and registered in your residing county to vote, random selection based on drivers licenses are summoned for jury duty to serve the community. However, jury verdicts of acquittal are unassailable even where the verdict is inconsistent with the weight of the evidence and instruction of the law. Jury nullification takes place when jurors acquit a defendant who is factually guilty because they disagree with the law as written. Jury nullification also occurs when a jury convicts a defendant because it condemns the defendant or his actions, even though the evidence at trial showed that he technically didn’t break any law.
The modern US version of a jury derived from ancient English law. It is said in the early 11th century, William the Conqueror brought a form of a jury system from Normandy that became the basis for early England’s juries. It was constructed of men who were sworn by oath to tell the king what they knew. King Henry II then expanded on the idea by using a group of white men with good morals to not only judge the accused, but also to investigate crimes. King Henry II had panels of 12 everyday, law abiding men; this aspect of it is much like modern juries. The difference is that these early jurors were “self-informing”. This means that they were expected to already have knowledge of the facts that would be presented in court prior to the trial. King Henry II’s first jurors were assigned the job of resolving the land disputes that were occurring in England. ...
Tom Robinson should not have tried to escape prison for three reasons. He would not have lost his life, he would have proven himself innocent, and he would have made a statement of how it’s wrong how white people treated black people.
Therefore the colour of Tom Robinson’s skin was the defining factor in the jury’s decision. Since the jury declared Tom Robinson guilty, that reveals his fate of going to jail and eventually being killed which is obviously an injustice based on the discrimination against him.
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.
A jury system inquires fairness in a court case. A jury is “A group of citizens called to hear a trial of a criminal prosecution of a lawsuit, decide the factual questions of guilt or innocence or determine the prevailing party (winner) in a lawsuit and the amount to be paid, if any, by the loser” (Law.com Legal Dictionary 2014). As a jury member they are obligated to tell the truth and give an honest response. The jury system randomly selects 12 people for each court case. Once you are 18 years old and registered you can be selected for jury service. There are two categories of people who cannot serve and that is people who are excluded from the jury roll and who are exempt from jury service (NSW Government 2014). Those who are excluded are people with criminal convictions and who hold high positions in public office. Those exempted are due to their employment (NSW Government 2014). As a jury member you are expected to dress appropriately, be honest, and give fu...
...ir if they tried. In our courts, when it's a white man's word against a black man's, the white man always wins. They're ugly, but those are the facts of life” (295). From the very beginning of the trial, the jury was going to find Tom Robinson guilty since it was a black man's word against a white man’s word. The all-white jury never wanted to see a black person win against a white person. After he is found guilty, Tom is sent to a prison where he tries to escape but is shot to death by the prison guards. Mr. Underwood writes an editorial in which he compares Tom being shot to death to hunters shooting mockingbirds. Like a mockingbird, Tom never caused any harm to anyone. Tom is “shot” by the jury when they assume that he is guilty because he is a black man and his alleged victim is white. In the end, an innocent man was found guilty because of the color of his skin.
Nearly the whole last half of the book is about racism. The attitude of the whole town is that Tom Robinson, because he is black and,"…all Negroes lie,…all Negroes are basically immoral beings,…all Negro men are not to be trusted around our women…"(Lee 207), will be found guilty regardless of how good a case Atticus makes for him. There was substantial amount of evidence that suggests his innocence. Even the prosecution's two witnesses' stories contradicted each other. The jury did not give a guilty verdict it gave a racist verdict. Not a verdict based on fact, but a verdict based on the color of a man's skin. This is important because the author was not making this racism up; it was what it was like in those times. She is trying to show how ignorant and blind people can be just because of differences between them, as well as how society treats racial minorities.
Throughout history, a plethora of different classes of people, cultures, and races have undergone some form of prejudice. Partiality against women has occurred, and continues to occur, in America. Susan Glaspell, author of "A Jury of her Peers," depicts a story of a close-knit community in the process of solving the mystery of a man's death, thought to be caused by his wife. In the investigation of Mr. Wright’s death, the women helping to search through the Wright farm for clues pointing to evidence of Minnie Wright’s murder of her husband were thought of as useless, when in reality, the women were solely responsible for finding and understanding Mrs. Wright's motives for murdering her husband. Glaspell uses imagery and a woman's point of view to depict how a woman may feel bound by limits set by society--- a feeling most easily understood by women who share the same perception of life.