Jury trials must attract engaged and thoughtful citizens; the rules of the courts must treat jurors as sovereign, self-governing citizens rather than as children. To this end, we suggest a number of reforms. In many instances, these changes would require no new laws, but merely a willingness on the part of the courts to unleash the common sense of the ordinary citizen. References Alschuler, Albert, "Our faltering jury.," Public Interest, Jan 1996, pp. 28.
The questions asked range from across the spectrum and are used as a strategic ta... ... middle of paper ... ...ied to serve and eliminates all prejudice that may come out of the voir dire process. Having a random selection of a jury panel also nullifies the chance that a verdict can be reached based on emotional stimulus. The entire manner a case is conducted will demonstrate higher ethics and rational because the jury would have been chosen democratically. Holding trials that are effectively structured around ethics and rational are better for the functioning of American government. The only disadvantage that may emerge from the random selection of jury is that the panel may be too democratic and in a diverse nation like the United Sates, too heterogeneous.
The existence of a jury means that lawyers must ensure that their cases are presented in a way that enables community understanding of important issues and principles. Without a jury it is argued the evolution of the principles of our legal system would become increasingly complex and removed from the understanding of the community. In general the community is more likely to have confidence in the decision of a representative group of that community than one made by a single judge or a court appointed panel of experts. If the system was removed it would open the adjudication process of civil and criminal trials up to the possibility of political or monetary influence - the jury is a vital institution for ensuring that 'open courts' remain truly open to public scrutiny. It is also argued by some that 'in diversity... ... middle of paper ... ... and feeling it limited their ability to absorb evidence.
...Judicial appointment eliminates the need for political pressure and allows judges to act as unbiased mediators of political disputes. In contrast, judicial elections would damage the function of state courts to uphold the law, likely be more corrupt than judicial appointment by tainting judicial integrity, and jeopardize procedural impartiality. Thus, judicial appointment is a better alternative where its benefits outweigh the defects. Judicial review promotes democracy when the political system poses a threat to democratic reform. It can also serve as a supervisor for Congress and the President to make sure they are not overstepping their boundaries.
Do we really want to try to make prisoners better people? They committed crime once who is to say they won't again. Maybe if I saw more reports on how prison has improved our society and the criminals who live among us, I would see why we should work on reforming our prisons. Until then, it does not seem to be working. We trust in the government to provide for our safety, but we must take responsibility among ourselves.
Jury nullification should become a more substantial part of the legal process and jurors should be informed of their ability to represent the “moral conscience of th... ... middle of paper ... ...s has been accelerated by the “dwindling respect for commonfolk.” (Butler 48) The growth “in respect for the elite” has provided a stimulus for leaving the question of law in the hands of the judge, an elite. (Butler 48) Furthermore, Butler contends that the jury’s ability to nullify the law “could check” the prosecution into being “careful” about the cases they chose to pursue. (Butler 47) The jury would essentially operate as a way to check and balance the executive branch if they jury “though law enforcement was getting out of hand.” (Butler 47) The existence of “extrajudicial decision making” and “discretion” in other facets of the criminal justice process are prevalent and acceptable such as a police officer not arresting someone for a “dime bag of marijuana.” (Butler 47) However, disallowing “12 jurors” discretion strikes Butler as hypocritical. (Butler 47)
Famous writer Robert Frost stated, “A jury consists of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer.” While selecting a competent lawyer is important, in the court of law, the process of jury selection is easily one of the most important factors. While many elements are considered during the process of jury selection, the most valuable is the use of psychology. Psychology is used by lawyers during the process of jury selection to choose the best possible jurors to decide the fate of their client. Psychology can be used in many different ways such as voir dire, persuasion, and research. The right to a trial by jury is deeply embedded in the American democratic stance.
The power of the jury is enormous and through time has become more equitable by decreasing the limitations to become a juror including race and sex. Part of the reasoning behind the right to a jury trial is to limit government power. Although judges should be fair and just, total power is too strong, and could be used to aid some people while harming others. As someone once said, “Power corrupts sometimes, but absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Many people thought anarchy would form through the use of a jury system, but no such thing has occurred. It has produced a feeling of involvement in the judicial system and government itself.
Would you rather have a bench trial with a sixty percent chance of being convicted or a jury trial with eighty seven percent chance of being convicted. Do we really trust these twelve individuals who are ordinary citizens to know and judge our actions with the law. Do we trust these individuals to only use the evidence presented in court to make their decisions? Do we have an effective system in eliminating those who might serve as a disadvantage to the defendant? While yes, there’s a process to eliminate those who have already formed opinions about the subject at hand , just like every other system it isn’t guaranteed to work efficiently a hundred percent of the time.
The public generally refer the jury as the ‘cornerstone’ of the British criminal justice system, an important element in ensuring public acceptance. It has been defended by some as the bastion of democracy. However, throughout the years, the jury has come under much criticism and reform with some labelling it an old-fashioned system that allows miscarriages of justice to take place. During the past 30 years, technological change has occur... ... middle of paper ... ...rs that the courts are very serious about the issue of contempt of court. However, if we are to preserve trial by jury, the ‘jewel in the crown’ of British justice, the imprisonment of just one individual is simply not enough for the public to keep this confidence in the system.