Words to be explained:
Jury: A body of people (typically twelve in number) sworn to give a verdict in a legal case on the basis of evidence submitted to them in court.
Nullification: In United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts.
Ought: Used to indicate duty or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.
Perceived: Become aware or conscious of (something); come to realize or understand.
Injustice: lack of fairness or justice
Jury nullification is an established practice within common law found in the United States. Jury nullification
…show more content…
In the United States there is a strong history of jury nullification being used during the colonial period to protect American settlers from unjust laws protecting the British aristocracy. The case that is considered the basis for judicial precedence is the case of John Peter Zenger in 1735. Zenger was charged with printing harsh criticism of the colonial governor of New York. The law at the time forbade any journalism to criticize government leaders whether or not the accusations were true. In court, a jury of peers found Zenger to be guilty of the charges but refused to convict Zenger believing that the law was unjust as it forbade factual information to be printed if the subject found it …show more content…
He admits to the fact he ended his wife’s life but pleads that he was acting out of mercy for someone he cared for and could not allow her to suffer in such great pain and discomfort. The jury finds him guilty of the crime but nullifies that verdict believing the law is unmerciful in this case.
2) A white man is charged for severely beating a sixteen-year-old black teen he found trespassing on his property. Evidence strongly shows the white man did beat the teen but the jury refuses to find the defendant guilty based on their belief that black teen “had it coming” and that “black teens trespassing are most likely up to no good.” The man is set free.
I agree with this system because some laws were made for aggravated crimes but sometimes a person may commit a crime, and all the evidence would be there but he may not have to be punished like the law says because this punishment would be too severe, so that’s when jury nullification comes in which would be
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
The purpose of this essay is to compare three very similar cases, the Scottsboro Trials, Brown v. Mississippi, and the fictional trial of Tom Robinson in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird; and to prove why the defendant of the third trial never had a chance. Each took place in the rural South in the 1920’s and 30’s and involved the unfair conviction of young black males by all-white juries pressured by the threat of mob violence. Each lacked the evidence sufficient for conviction, most especially for the death penalty. Last, heroes emerged from each trial and made small but solid steps towards equal justice for all.
The hypocrisy and double standard that allowed whites to bring harm to blacks without fear of any repercussions had existed for years before the murder Tyson wrote about occurred in May of 1970 (Tyson 2004, 1). Lynching of black men was common place in the south as Billie Holiday sang her song “Strange Fruit” and the eyes of justice looked the other way. On the other side of the coin, justice was brought swiftly to those blacks who stepped out of line and brought harm to the white race. Take for instance Nate Turner, the slave who led a rebellion against whites. Even the Teel’s brought their own form of justice to Henry Marrow because he “said something” to one of their white wives (1).
In one incident when a white teenager Deryl Dedman ran over his truck over Black guy James Craig Anderson by passing a racial slur, “ I ran that nigger over” (Rankine 94)(10). This shows the white’s extra ordinary powers to oppress the black community and the failure of legal system
.guilty. . .guilty. . .guilty. . .” (211). By using only four guilty’s, Lee is able to demonstrate that the word of two white people has a greater effect than that of an African American even though the man who was put up for his life had not harmed, nor had he ever damaged anything he came into contact with.
This chapter is mainly devoted to the jury selection process and how it is taken care
In the 1930’s a plethora of prejudiced persons are present amidst the prominent Scottsboro trials, a seven-year-long case consisting of false rape allegations made against nine black boys from Scottsboro. When citizens fail to acknowledge their own preconceived ideas and look past the prejudice present in society, justice cannot be served. In the Scottsboro case, the court of Alabama disregards the societal issues surrounding racial discrimination and endorses the guilty verdict and conviction of the nine African American boys. Failing to look past their own personal biases, the jury ignores the unquestionable evidence that would support the boys’ case. Instead, the jury focuses on their predilection
Their were many situations were if innocent or not were lynched to make a statement that whites were more dominant of the races. Another example, on page 101, "The entire system of the judiciary of this country is in the hands of white people. To this add the fact of the inherent prejudice against colored people, and it will be clearly seen that a white jury is certain to find a Negro prisoner guilty if there is the least evidence to warrant such a finding." Meredith Lewis was arrested, but not convicted of a charge. The mob had to make a point to follow Meredith Lewis and kidnap him and hanged by his neck for a murder which her was not convicted.
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.
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. ...
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
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.
Section 80 of the Australian Constitution contains a provision that states that “the trial of indictment of any offence...shall be by jury” (Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act), with some semblance of juries in Australia existing since the years following the arrival of the First Fleet in 1788. These “juries” were “comprised of six military officers… sitting with a military judicial officer, the Judge-Advocate” (Chesterman, 1999) and the notion of juries has since developed into the familiar bench of six and twelve members in civil and criminal cases, respectively (Supremecourt.vic.gov.au, n.d.). Questions concerning the relevancy and suitability of juries in regard to their role in
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.