In the Crown Court criminal cases, twelve jurors are used for indictable offences. The Queens Bench Division of High Court deals with civil cases and also contains twelve jurors. These are cases involving libel and slander, fraud, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. In civil cases at a County Court, eight jurors are present although this is rare. Seven to eleven jurors are present at suspicious death cases at the Coroners Court.
Nevertheless, it is a right in only four types of civil case, which are: defamation over £10,000, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment and fraud. In other civil cases it is discretionary. To be on a jury you need to qualify. To qualify for jury service a person must be aged between 18 and 70, registered on the electoral roll, and they must have lived in the UK for at least five years since the age of 13. People are ineligible for jury service if they are suffering from certain mental disorders, if they are part of the judiciary and/or linked to others concerned with the administration of justice, and finally, if they are a member of the Clergy.
The majority of states have twelve member juries in felony cases, for misdemeanor crime the numbers are more varied (Worrall, 2015). Another important aspect of jury numbers is the number of jurors required for a conviction. A unanimous decision is not always required for conviction in state civil cases. However, all of the state misdemeanor trials are required to have a unanimous decision, except Oregon, as well all state
In 1974 Lord Salmon estimated that about 2% of cases brought before the jury are wrongly acquitted and about 5% of the convictions in Birmingham were considered "doubtful" and even though there is always a risk of convicting an innocent this figure is considered unacceptably high. Appeals against convictions solely on evidence are very rarely successful. About one third of the jury's acquittals were questionable and were said to be mainly down to feeling sympathy for the defendant or a general mistrust of the police evidence. However although only 2% of cases brought before the jury are wrongly acquitted people still stand divided on how beneficial and fair the jury system is, and although the jury has been around for a long time, is it now time to replace it with an alternative?
Potential jurors can be anyone who is 18 to 70, on the electoral register and has lived in the UK for 5 years is eligible since the age of 13. If a person has not been in ... ... middle of paper ... ...itting a crime, and has been sentenced for more than 5 years, they have already been punished but are disqualified based on the assumption that their criminal past means they are not able to make fair decisions in court. Also if a person is not on the electoral register it doesn’t mean they are not capable of being a reliable member of the jury. Because these restrictions disqualify so many people of society, it does not fully incorporate the perspectives, values and preferences of the whole community; it only incorporates those members of the community that happen to meet the criteria. Furthermore societies in the UK are so diverse with different cultures, religious beliefs and values that the infusion of community values into criminal law could lead to more complications and differences, because ultimately people will have different perceptions of right and wrong.
There isn’t a jury in a magistrates’ court. A magistrates’ court normally handles summary cases and some triable-either-way offences. Summary offences normally include motoring offences, minor criminal damage or being drunk and disorderly while triable-either-way offences are a bit more serious for example burglary or drug offences, they are called triable-either-way because they can be tried at either the Crown Court or the magistrates’ court. Magistrates’ courts always pass the most serious crimes known as indictable offences to the
Even though a fair percent of the population sees the death penalty as being abstruse, there is a very few people who are unfaltering to the subject, in my paper I am going to give you the controversial side of this big dispute. "We cannot overcome crime by simply executing criminals, nor can we restore the lives of the innocent by ending the lives of those convicted of their murder's. The death penalty offers the tragic illusion that we an defend life by taking life.” (United States Catholic conference Of bishops). Capital punishment is never a way to discipline another human, for it is proven that states that allow it has the highest crime rate. Capital punishment has always been a huge debate because, it has been used unfairly against people.
In origin, capital punishment was reserved for only the most extreme of crimes, as was intended as a heavy threat to those who would consider homicide. The goal was deterrence, which is the use of punishment to threaten (or deter) criminals from offending. Unfortunately, this has failed in action. According to Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88% of of Criminologists believe that the death penalty is a not a successful deterrent for homicide. Additionally, a staggering 87% of them claim that abolishing the death penalty would have no impact on homicide rates (deathpenaltyinfo.org).
The Role of the Jury in a Crown Court For all court appearances, jurors are selected randomly, by an official at the crown court from the electoral registers. In order to be selected for a jury the person must be: between the ages of 18-70; have lived in the country for at least 5years and be registered as a parliamentary elector. In 2003 a new act was passed, The Criminal Justice Act, this meant that everybody was eligible to be called for jury service. This new act does not excuse anyone in the legal profession, justice system or the health system. The only people who don't have to serve jury service are those who are disqualified.
Since this case took place in New York, it is impractical to have an all-white male jury today. Twelve Angry Men is a perfect representation of how the jury process took place before the 2000’s, but now that we have evolved as a whole through political, racial, and gender eras, the depiction is a little outdated and I feel as though today’s society no longer values the rights of an individual who has been arrested for a charge they may have possibly committed. Once selected to be part of a juror, he/she must “take a solemn oath, by the ever-living God,