Charnese Hickling
07-13-2015
MC-IC-CAE
The Evolution of Democracy in Athens
“In a democracy, there is, first, that most splendid of virtues, equality before the law.” the Greek historian Herodotus wrote. In essence democracy is a relatively simple concept that has manifested into many extremes. At its simplest form democracy can be referred to as a government of the people. However if you peer deeper into the concept it can be defined as a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. Whatever the case may be or however you decide to define democracy you can find its origins in Athens, Greece. The word democracy (dēmokratia) derives
…show more content…
the supreme tribunal, the Areopagus, which was their supreme court began to diminish in power and authority. The Areopagus was a council composed of former archons, who had general oversight of laws and the government. With the Areopagus declining in power, a full democracy was put into effect in Athens. Shortly after the democracy was set up Pericles, the Greek statesman expanded it. He was able to set up compensation for service in public office and jury duty, allowing many who could not financially afford to take office in the government to still be able to participate, thus fully extending the governance of Athens to all of its male …show more content…
The Ancient Athenian trials were heard by a randomly selected jury of anywhere between 200 and 6,000 citizens. Potential jurors volunteered for duty at the beginning of each year, entered into the juror pool by lottery and were assigned randomly to a case each day when they presented themselves for service. Cases were presided over by lay magistrates, also chosen by lottery, which had no formal training and could not make decision regarding cases, juries or testimonies. You can find the America’s interpretation of the right to a speedy and public trial in the 6th amendment of the United States Constitution. It reads, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."
However, this is not the case in the United States. In the U.S. courts have juristically smaller juries; a much more regulated process and more powerful judges, the basic idea of a fair trial by jury remained the same
While having a judge may seem like it is more effective, while calculating time spent on the case, money used, and the education in the field of justice that a judge has, using a trial by jury is the best way to preserve the American ideal of democracy. In the Jury system mini Q document F, Mark twin mentions that the jury system doesn’t want educated people because they would make the trial too easy for one side. Rather than insulting the jury system it seems like this is more of a good thing because it shows that the jury system doesn’t want people who know too much about the subject already and could sway the decision based solely on their bias. Another way that the system is fair is the fact that rather than having one judge decide the fate of a person, rather it is 12 other citizens that have no ties to the person. In the Jury system mini Q document B The letter states “a reasoned and professional judgment should be replaced by blanket verdicts or pretty well any twelve men and women … I had taken my leave of sense.” While this man is insulting the jury system what he says should still be looked at. The people that come together for a jury will have much less bias towards the accused person that a judge who has either seen the person before, or could just not be looking at it with multiple points of
Due to such limitations within the jury selection process, it is hardly said to be a fair and just system. In Europe, defendants are always tried by judges and assessors which I believe to be a much fairer way in deciding the innocence or guilt of a person.
What many American do not realize is that the concept of peremptory challenges has been around since the Roman era, but controversy over the topic in America did not come about until the twentieth century (Henley 1). Under Roman law, each litigant was allowed to select 100 jurors and then strike as many as 50 people from the jury pool (1). English Common law allowed the defendant 35 peremptory challenges, while the prosecution had an unlimited amount (1). This system was alive in England until 1305 when Parliament outlawed the prosecution’s right to peremptory challenges (1). It took over 600 years for Parliament to do the same with the rights to challenges for defendants in 1988 (1). The American legal system, being based on British common law, has always allowed for the use of peremptory challenges. One reasoning behind this fact is the American tradition of challenges (6). To be exact, the reason we continue to use peremptory challenges ...
In the United States, jury trials are an important part of our court system. We rely heavily on the jury to decide the fate of the accused. We don’t give a second thought to having a jury trial now, but they were not always the ‘norm’.
They are the impartial third-party whose responsibility is to deliver a verdict for the accused based on the evidence presented during trial. They balance the rights of society to a great extent as members of the community are involved. This links the legal system with the community and ensures that the system is operating fairly and reflecting the standards and values of society. A trial by jury also ensures the victim’s rights to a fair trial. However, they do not balance the rights of the offender as they can be biased or not under. In the News.com.au article ‘Judge or jury? Your life depends on this decision’ (14 November 2013), Ian Lloyd, QC, revealed that “juries are swayed by many different factors.” These factors include race, ethnicity, physical appearance and religious beliefs. A recent study also found that juries are influenced by where the accused sits in the courtroom. They found that a jury is most likely to give a “guilty” verdict if the accused sits behind a glass dock (ABC News, 5 November 2014). Juries also tend to be influenced by their emotions; hence preventing them from having an objective view. According to the Sydney Morning Herald article ‘Court verdicts: More found innocent if no jury involved’ (23 November 2013), 55.4 per cent of defendants in judge-alone trials were acquitted of all charges compared with 29 per cent in jury trials between 1993 and 2011. Professor Mark Findlay from the University of Sydney said that this is because “judges were less likely to be guided by their emotions.” Juries balance the rights of victims and society to a great extent. However, they are ineffective in balancing the rights of the offender as juries can be biased which violate the offender’s rights to have a fair
Citizens of the United States are given the right to a fair trial. Over the course of the development of the American jury system, citizens are allowed to the right to meet one’s accuser, be represented by his/her peers and protection from being tried more than once on any convicted crime. The jury system has evolved from a representation of all white men to both men and women from very diverse backgrounds. This is important if one is going to be tried in his/her community of peers.
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.
The Athenian government was a democratic government, which means it was ruled by the people to vote and have a voice in society. The democracy was slowly formed by leaders Solon and Cleisthenes. Solon took over when Athens was in political turmoil. He introduced new reforms to forgive debts, outlaw new loans, free people that
Arguments For and Against Juries The right to a trial by jury is a tradition that goes right to the the heart of the British legal system. It is a right fiercely fought for. and fiercely defended at those times when its powers have been seen to be under threat as those backing reforms are finding. The tradition of being "tried by a jury of one's peers" probably has its origins in Anglo Saxon custom, which dictated that an accused man could be acquitted if enough people came forward to swear his innocence.
The right to a trial by jury is deeply embedded in the American democratic stance. This shines through the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments
Democracy is the structure of government still used today in many countries.The definition of democracy is a system of government where people who rule directly are freely elected representatives.In addition, democracy comes from the Greek word demokratia. Demo meaning people and kratia meaning power of rule. For instance, here is an example, Great Britain has a democratic government since elected officials and laws are voted on by the people and also the representatives they elect. Therefore Athens exemplifies a democratic government. “Athenians would meet and vote on a simple question …. is anyone becoming a threat to democracy? If a simple majority voted yes,then they dispersed and reassembled two months later,
“The polis itself became a major economic factor in terms of public employment on juries or in large public building projects, like Acropolis, or the famous Athenian navy ( Augustana university, n.d.)” Democracy provided significant benefits in an economically sense as office holders, jurymen members and administrative council of 500 as people where paid for their time served (Cartledge, 2011). “Power to the people, all the people, especially the poor majority, remained the guiding principle of Athenian democracy (Cartledge, 2011).” This government also paid the citizens to attend assembly, this enabled the poor to be able to attend the assembly (Blackwell, 2003). Democracy also contributed to a stronger army and navy” it was evident that the Athenian army and navy were more powerful because their men believed they were fighting for their own democracy and for their own freedom” ( Augustana university, n.d.). Athens this evidence clearly establishes that democracy gave many Athenian citizens employment and it also lead to victory in the wars. This system of government was a revolutionary idea, overall it provided a just government and formed a system were the whole citizen body can actively participate in the political system. This lead to the economic and political success of the democratic system in Athens that has since developed
Though most court cases in the U.S. is settled by a bench trial, those who go to a trial by jury have a greater chance of being prejudice towards the defendant which tends to be highly unfavorable and most the time leads to a guilty verdict. An example of this would be the case of Foster v. The State
The march towards developing a democratic society is often obstructed with societal unrest due to the influence of the status quo on the instruments of power. Before the rule of Solon, Athens underwent this same rule, as there was much discontent among the social classes in Athens. The society suffered financial disparity that often was the trigger for the war among the rich and poor in the society. This was a major factor that forced Solon into power to institute policies that would see a reformed Athens. By so doing, the society was looking for an avenue that would guarantee democracy and a society that is fair for everyone. The city-state of Athens was the epicenter of the revolution for the Athenian democracy during the fifth century BC. In the Athenian democracy, the electorate voted for the legislation of bills instead of a direct democracy where the electorates are tasked with electing representatives who later developed the bill. Among the first people who made significant contributions to the development of the Athenian democracy were Solon (594 BC), Cleisthenes (508/7 BC), Pericles (495 – 429 BC) and Ephialtes (462 BC). Pericles was the longest serving democratic leader who contributed much development in democracy in the city. This paper will give an account of the age of the Pericles.
A memorable expression said by President Abraham Lincoln reads, “Democracy is government of the people, by the people, and for the people”. Democracy, is a derived from the Greek term "demos" which means people. It is a successful, system of government that vests power to the public or majority. Adopted by the United States in 1776, a democratic government has six basic characteristics: (i) established/elected sovereignty (where power and civic responsibility are exercised either directly by the public or their freely agreed elected representative(s)), (ii) majority rule(vs minority), (iii) (protects one’s own and reside with) human rights, (iv) regular free and fair elections to citizens (upon a certain age), (v) responsibility of