Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Is the justice system fair
Role of a jury in a criminal trial
Fairness in the criminal justice system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Is the justice system fair
How do we know that every time we go into the courtroom for a crime that we have committed we are going to receive a fair trial? How are we supposed to know that each person in there will not already have an opinion? Over the years there have been many different court cases that were decided on what color you were. An example of this is, a white man was a juror in a black man’s case where he killed his wife and his kids, he said that since the man was black he wanted to give him the death penalty. Is this the type of person you would want in your jurors, already having an opinion before you even begin? This is constantly happening all over the United States in court rooms. No matter what happens though people will always have an opinion no matter what. There is no way to change that. What we can change though is having people on the jury that understand what you have been through. This is one of the biggest problems when it comes to court rooms. We need to make sure everyone is given a fair trial, no matter what the circumstance are, and what the ruling could be. Everyone …show more content…
Many of the judges can become corrupt over their years of serving. Most judges begin to accept bribes and many different things that will help out one side. They have the power of what can be said in their court and what cannot be. This can make it much easier for them to favor one side or the other. They can also become more of a referee then a judge according to John F. Molloy who wrote the book The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion. This book was about all of the different reasons why he believed the court system was corrupt. He also states that judges will create their own laws based on their own opinions and rulings. Knowing this how are we supposed to believe that we are going to be receiving a fair trial. Are they always going to be siding with the defense team or are they going to be on your
Despite the efforts of lawyers and judges to eliminate racial discrimination in the courts, does racial bias play a part in today’s jury selection? Positive steps have been taken in past court cases to ensure fair and unbiased juries. Unfortunately, a popular strategy among lawyers is to incorporate racial bias without directing attention to their actions. They are taught to look for the unseen and to notice the unnoticed. The Supreme Court in its precedent setting decision on the case of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), is the first step to limiting racial discrimination in the court room. The process of selecting jurors begins with prospective jurors being brought into the courtroom, then separating them into smaller groups to be seated in the jury box. The judge and or attorneys ask questions with intent to determine if any juror is biased or cannot deal with the issues fairly. The question process is referred to as voir dire, a French word meaning, “to see to speak”. During voir dire, attorneys have the right to excuse a juror in peremptory challenges. Peremptory challenges are based on the potential juror admitting bias, acquaintanceship with one of the parties, personal knowledge of the facts, or the attorney believing he/she might not be impartial. In the case of Batson v. Kentucky, James Batson, a black man, was indicted for second-degree burglary and receipt of stolen goods. During the selection of the jury the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to strike out all of the four black potential jurors, leaving an all white jury. Batson’s attorney moved to discharge the venire, the list from which jurors may be selected, on the grounds that the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges violated his client’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to have a jury derived from a “cross-section of the community”(People v. Wheeler, 583 P.3d 748 [Calif. 1978]). The circuit court ruled in favor of the prosecutor and convicted Batson on both counts. This case went through the courts and finalized in the U.S. Supreme Court.
The New York Times bestseller book titled Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case examines the O.J. Simpson criminal trial of the mid-1990s. The author, Alan M. Dershowitz, relates the Simpson case to the broad functions and perspectives of the American criminal justice system as a whole. A Harvard law school teacher at the time and one of the most renowned legal minds in the country, Dershowitz served as one of O.J. Simpson’s twelve defense lawyers during the trial. Dershowitz utilizes the Simpson case to illustrate how today’s criminal justice system operates and relates it to the misperceptions of the public. Many outside spectators of the case firmly believed that Simpson committed the crimes for which he was charged for. Therefore, much of the public was simply dumbfounded when Simpson was acquitted. Dershowitz attempts to explain why the jury acquitted Simpson by examining the entire American criminal justice system as a whole.
Viewing a judge's sentence creates a divide in society. Will the accused be offered a fair trial? Could t...
We, the families and supporters of innocent citizens that have been condemned for crimes that they did not commit, are tired of mistreatment. In the court of law, it is assumed that there is no bias in play, but how is that possible if the outcome can be predicted before one sets foot in the courtroom (pg.1)? This not only is a waste of time, it also lets the guilty walk free among the rest of society, teaching them that they can get away with anything they please. How can we truly say that the innocent are innocent until proven guilty, when the verdict is being decided based on feeling and not fact?
The Miranda warnings stem from a United States Court’s decision in the case, Miranda v. Arizona. There are two basic conditions that must be met for Miranda warnings to be required: the suspect must be in official police custody and the suspect must be under interrogation. The suspect goes through a booking process after an arrest. The suspect will have a bond hearing shortly after the completion of the booking process or after arraignment. The arraignment is the suspect’s first court appearance to officially hear the charges filed against him or her and to enter a plea. The preliminary hearing or grand jury proceeding determines if there is substantial evidence for the suspect to be tried for the crime charged. In this essay, I will identify and describe at least four rights afforded criminal defendants at the arrest stage and during pretrial. I will analyze the facts presented and other relevant factors in the scenario provided. I will cite legal authority to support my conclusions.
In previous eras, anti-Black sentiment was widely acknowledged and sometimes encouraged in the United States. Black litigants have endured a long history of racist attitudes and inequality in the criminal justice system To this day, it is impossible to determine if jurors present an unbiased trial for the defendants regardless of their racial background. Although the undercurrent of racism may continue to be present in modern juries, racial prejudice in the modern legal system is certainly less flagrant as many.
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.
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.
The criminal trial process is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society to a great extent. For the law to be effective, the criminal trial process must reflect what is accepted by society to be a breach of moral and ethical conduct and the extent to which protections are granted to the victims, the offenders and the community. For these reasons, the criminal trial process is effectively able to achieve this in the areas of the adversary system, the system of appeals, legal aid and the jury system.
In 1949, the United States Federal Communications Commission introduced a policy referred to as the Fairness Doctrine in which “broadcast journalist was required to dedicate airtime to controversial issues of the public concern in a balanced manner” (p 19). The rationale for the policy was the belief that the media without the requirement to present information regarding controversial issues in an equitable and balanced manner would possess the power to sway public opinion in a manner that would not serve the public interest. Given that many Americans receive their information through the mainstream media like the major television networks and cable broadcasting entities, as well as newspapers such as the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal,
Our current trial by jury system was originally adopted from Anglo-Saxon English common law. Prior to juries, the United States had much more rudimentary methods that were in affect, such as bench trials. A bench trial consists of solely the judge determining the final verdict, versus a jury possessing that responsibility. Proceeding with a trial by jury assures that there will be a margin of error, simply due to the fact that the jurors are human, and are susceptible to human fallibility. Whether the jury is cognizant of it or not, emotions such as pre-determined bias and favoritism can impede or bring the case to a halt all together. According to Andy Leipold, a professor emeritus at the University of Illinois College of Law, the number of jury trial conviction rates have increased from 75 percent in 1946 to 84 percent from 1989 to 2002 (Krause). This sudden anomaly can be attributed to the influx of uneducated jurors, the increased cost of proceeding to trial, and improper juror selection.
The judge, with one word, can decide the fate of the defendant. Whether or not they actually are guilty or not. Back then, when new races were introduced and “ accepted” into America, people were bias against those people just for those races. A grand example is in the book To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee, with many people, black or white, having unfair trials for several reasons based on being racist, being afraid, and being unequal in society.
Jury Trial The history of jury trial dates back many centuries in which time the role and status of jury members have changed considerably as have the number and range of cases tried by the jury system. A major milestone in the history of juries was in Bushell's Case (1670), that established that the juries were the sole judges of fact, with the right to give a verdict according to conscience. They could not be penalized for taking a view of the facts opposed to that of the judge. The importance of this power today is that juries may acquit a defendant, even when the law demands a guilty verdict.
We live in a republic, where we have a voice on government and pay taxes to help keep aspects of our society we want to keep. These tax dollars can go to a number of places including education, architecture, social service programs, and to keep criminals off the street. In the matter of the justice system, the cost of giving a fair trial and paying for incarceration of individuals gets expensive. For capital punishment, the trial must be given in two-stages, thus increasing the amount of money needed for the trial to occur. In a state where the death penalty is active, a capital punishment trial can cost the state at least $100,000.00 more than if it were a regular murder trial (Dieter). The two-stage trial is a mandate from the federal government
In the novel The Stranger by Albert Camus, the main character Meursault was convicted of murder and as a result was sentenced to death for his questionable character and wrongdoings. It can be argued that the verdict was just or unjust but in the end, the unjust assumptions and invalid connections outweigh the severity of the crime.