It can adequately be argued that the jury system has its roots in England and it is basically made up of twelve people who sit in criminal and civil events to make decisions on matters of facts and not law since the jurists in most cases do not have legal knowledge now that they are not experts in law. The members of the jury are individuals who command great respect and dignity in the society and in some instances they have expert knowledge on various matters that warrant them to sit in court and contribute immensely on the matter of the law. England has practiced the jury system for the past 800 years. The justification behind the establishment of the jury system in England was to have the court to personally investigate some cases for fairness …show more content…
Formerly, it was anticipated that there must be a unanimous verdict of either not guilty or not guilty something that has changed with time to have permit a 10-2 majority verdict in the event that the members of the jury do not agree within the specified timeframe, the judge at his or her discretion may allow such a verdict. In other words, the decisions arrived at by the jury should not be influenced by anything else apart from the law and the evidence transmitted in the court. Individual members of the public are chosen at random to offer service a move that is meant to make sure that the chosen people are not biased in the various court matters presented before them. The jury service is ruled by the Juries Act 1974 and the Criminal Justice Act 2003. This is a great pointer to the fact that it is a process that is fully backed by law and as such, needs to be taken seriously for fairness and pure justice to be realized. In trials by jury, the jury decides on factual questions and the judge decides on law …show more content…
Jury will provide a sympathetic hearing (a fairer one) something that is key in making sure that they feel the impact that the matter at hand is having on both parties and as a result be able to offer a valid and acceptable judgment. The jury has no previous knowledge of case and can give an unbiased decision. The Fact that the juries have nothing to do with the case and at the same time lack any background information on the parties involved in the dispute makes it easy for their decisions to be believed on the basis that they are unbiased and objective by all
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
This chapter is mainly devoted to the jury selection process and how it is taken care
They weigh the evidence and apply the law. In the court system, criminal law is interpreted by a jury who are seen as expressing the sense of justice of ordinary men and women. Juries date back to the Middle Ages in England, and while membership, role, and importance have changed throughout the ages, they were part of the system of England’s Common Law. The purpose of the jury system was to ensure the civil rights of the ordinary citizen. It is important to remember that at the time, ordinary people had few rights.
Jury Bias With jury bias we examined that the perspective taking, victim impact statements and race of the victim had no main effects with ps > 0.26 and no significant interactions with ps > 0.64. Jury Race The race of the jury was divided into white and non-white participants. An ANOVA was then run with perspective taking, victim impact statements, and race of the victim as the between-participants factors to test against empathy felt for the defendant, for the victim, for the victim’s significant others. White participants. We observed that there was a main effect with the race of the jury and the empathy felt by the jury for the victim.
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. ...
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
Now that we have discussed the pretrial occurrences, we get into the trial portion of the court process. This is the portion of the process in which both the defense and the prosecution present their cases to the jury, the judge, and the rest of the courtroom. To select a jury, the bring in potential jurors and ask them questions,
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...
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 book Acquittal by Richard Gabriel states, “juries are the best judges in the system. They are not elected, they don't have the high-powered microscope of appellate review or the stern, disapproving-schoolmarm precedent looking over their shoulder, and they have no interest in the outcome of the case.” For this reason, we can come to the conclusion that the use of juries in a trial is the best for all involved in the legal system. While juries, “are the best judges in the system”, lawyers, jury consultants, and jury scientists are the reasons they are viewed this way. It is their job to make sure that not only their client, but everyone has a fair and unbiased trial.Making sure that “the best judges in the system” are fair and unbiased takes a lot of planning, research, and effort. You must research the jurors, understand how they think, what their morals are, and how they would view this case. “It is a constructed reality, cobbled together by shifting memories of witnesses, attorney arguments, legal instructions, personal experiences, and beliefs of jurors.”(Gabriel
Although it is a cartoon, it is a really accurate image of what most people on juries can be like. The first cartoon is a jury full of people and how their minds are wandered off onto other things rather than the case they are assigned to. This may not be true to everyone who has ever been on a jury but it is a problem that I’m sure most juries have. When was the last time anyone has ever been excited to be on a jury? In my experience being on a court jury was a bad thing, it was forced upon and the people that had to go wanted to do whatever it took to get them out of there as quick as possible. So why should we rely on the decisions of people who don’t even want to be there? In the same document, cartoon two, it says “we, the jury, find the defendant to be as guilty as he looks.”, this really shocked me because I never really gave a thought on what if a jury is biased or judgemental. It is a possibility that many courts face and it is unfair to those involved in a
Mention the pros and cons of our jury system and possible alternatives of it. Also, identify the group dynamics of the jury members
Trial by jury is a process in which the defendant is being put on trial in the Crown Court by a group of individuals who share the same social class, also known as “peers” (Joyce, 2012). According to the Juries Act (1974) to take part in jury service you have to be between the ages of 18 and 65 and have been living in the United Kingdom for at least five years. The role of the jury is to sit in the courtroom with the defendant and prosecutor and observe the proceedings in order to come to a judgement whether the defendant is guilty of the crime they are being put on trial for or of they are in fact innocent (Joyce, 2012). The jury acts as a sort of unbiased “audience” that watch the case unfold in order to come to a decision.
In Source F, The Guardian writer Paul Mandelle, who has been studying law for a quarter of a century, briefly discusses his experiences with juries and uses fact and reason to support the effectiveness of the jury system,”The report from the [British] Ministry of Justice published last week, the culmination of 18 months of meticulous research into over half a million cases heard in England and Wales, shows juries are fair, efficient and effective. They convict almost two-thirds of those they try, they convict more than they acquit in rape, they do not exhibit any racial bias and they only fail to reach verdicts in less than 1% of cases.” Using this information, one can discern the thought process taking place in juries. Juries failing to reach verdicts in less than 1% of cases illustrates the tedious process of deliberations. Juries are hard at work deciphering the plethora of information heard in court.