The use of the jury in some trials shows how the everyday atmosphere is brought into the courtroom. Jurors have a part in deciding the outcomes of cases and as a collective decide the extent of the harm in the case. They apply socially accepted norms to the courtroom when determining the enforceable situation of the alleged criminal (Garfinkel: 104). A juror is asked to be a blank slate when entering the courtroom. However, what needs to taken into consideration is the fact that each individual carries his or her own values, bias and beliefs in any situation. They decide to what extent the case at hand goes against the standards of the normal individual. The definition of normal in this case is subjected to the context in which the event is …show more content…
There is no way to measure how everyday people of the jury compartmentalize the information given to them. By disregarding information, does it work in favor of justice or does it highlight a forbidden topic. Using a jury trial and the disregarding of evidence played a key role in the OJ Simpson case that began in 1994 (Jasanoff: 714). Just after a year of his acquittal of the first case, he became the defendant of a civil suit placed by the relatives of the victims. When asking juries to disregard statements and evidence can change their decision-making abilities, especially if the evidence directly links the alleged criminal to the crime as it did arguably in OJ Simpson’s case. During this trial, the defense tried to highlight and find errors in the Los Angeles Police Department’s procedures for collective and transporting evidence (Jasanoff: 715). The evidence, which was once connected to the trial, was now inspected to establish both its validity and reliability. The outside influence of the evidence played a role in the decision, which included the credentials of the lab and their procedures. In sum, the jury’s roles in legal proceedings emphasize the influence of the everyday nature in the law. In these cases, the jury has much more control on the case rather than the law controlling their
Kassin, Saul, and Lawrence Wrightsman (Eds.). The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure. Chapter 3. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1985. Print.
As one of the seven jury deliberations documented and recorded in the ABC News television series In the Jury Room the discussions of the jurors were able to be seen throughout the United States. A transcript was also created by ABC News for the public as well. The emotions and interactions of the jurors were now capable of being portrayed to anyone interested in the interworkings of jury deliberations. The first task,...
At trial, your life is in the palms of strangers who decide your fate to walk free or be sentenced and charged with a crime. Juries and judges are the main components of trials and differ at both the state and federal level. A respectable citizen selected for jury duty can determine whether the evidence presented was doubtfully valid enough to convict someone without full knowledge of the criminal justice system or the elements of a trial. In this paper, juries and their powers will be analyzed, relevant cases pertaining to jury nullification will be expanded and evaluated, the media’s part on juries discretion, and finally the instructions judges give or may not include for juries in the court. Introduction Juries are a vital object to the legal system and are prioritized as the most democratic element in our society, aside from voting, in our society today.
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.
The O. J. Simpson Trial 1995 Professor Shea Criminology CCJ1001 July 26, 2017. It was the night of June 12, 1994, a woman and her long-time male friend were murdered in cold blood. The victims, Nicole Brown Simpson, her neck cut so savagely it almost severed from her body and Ronald Goldman, stabbed repeatedly, nearly 30 times. The accused, her ex-husband and football star, Orenthan James Simpson, better known as O.J. Simpson. During the trial, a trial that consisted of 150 witnesses, lasted 133 days and cost in the ball park of 15 million dollars, there were many questions asked and even more questions left unanswered (Douglas).
A crime being committed is the first event to initiate our criminal justice system. On June 12th 1994 a double murder was reported at the residence of Nicole Brown Simpson the ex-wife of the then beloved Orenthal James (OJ) Simpson. It was discovered that Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman had been brutally murdered and the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) began their investigation, this being the second step in our criminal justice system.
The O.J Simpson murder case was a criminal trial held in Los Angeles County Superior Court in California. The.The former football star is tired on two counts of murder after the death of his former wife Nicole Brown Simpson and waiter Ronald Lyle Goldman in June of 1994.The trial lasted from November 2 1994 to the verdict in October 3 1995.He goes to the residents of Nicole Brown Simpson he hides in side her house and waits till Ronald came home he rang the door bell on the gateway and Nicole come out side and lets him in later that day and O.J. comes out and punches Ronald and using the butt if the gun he knocks Nicole out.He goes back to Ronald and hold his hand over his mouth and he talks to him and stabs him in his neck,chest and abdomen.He
slaughtered the mother of his children. OJ Simpson was thought to be one of the best football players, but on the night of June 12, 1994, how Americans perceived him, would change forever. On that fatal night, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman both got brutally stabbed to death. Ex- husband, OJ Simpson was immediately a prime suspect in the case. On June 17, after an intense police chase, Simpson was arrested and charged for murder. The trial began on January 24, 1995 and after months of back and forth, OJ Simpson was acquitted on October 3, 1995. In the 1994 controversial court case of OJ Simpson, the innocent verdict incorrectly acquitted Simpson due to the neglect of copious amounts of DNA evidence, testimonies from close friends and allies, and Simpson’s own confessions and behaviors.
The jury system is essentially a descendant of Great Britain, the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians. Colonialism played a significant role in the development of the jury system globally. However, despite colonial influence, judicial systems across the world have taken their own way. As a result, the jury system has developed and changed to suit the needs and social conscience of different countries. Across the world, juries examine and decide the facts in a jury trial, the accuracy of the testimony, the guilt or innocence of criminal defendants, and liabilities in a civil litigation. Today, many countries such as Britain, United States, Brazil, Canada, Japan, Australia, France, German, India, and so on practice jury trials. These countries will be the issue of discussion in this paper.
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.
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.
One of the most coveted trials in terms of popularity and media attention the O.J Simpson trial which took place between 1994 and concluded on October 2,1995 with O.J Simpson being acquitted of charges laid upon him during the Murder Trial Due to handling of physical evidence and questions over whether Mark Fuhrman planted the bloody glove at the scene to frame O.J. so in an attempt to understand how a deviation from standard operating procedures in the handling of physical evidence can affect the outcome of a criminal trial; One most first understand evidence and how to preserve it. When the crime scene technician took blood samples from Simpson’s Ford Bronco (1996) she used a cotton swab to take samples; but instead of using
Fairchild, H. & Cowan, G (1997). Journal of Social Issues. The O.J. Simpson Trial: Challenges to Science and Society.
the blindfolded lady justice is Queen.” Chad is not a judge or even a lawyer, but his quotation encompasses the concepts of due process and equality under the law that our judicial system prides itself on. Specifically in the realm of criminal prosecutions in the United States, the 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides protections to the accused and implies the fundamental presumption of innocence standard that has been carried over from common law. Judges are empowered by the nature of their position and the rule of law to uphold these standards and protections in their courtrooms as well as to make their rulings and decisions impartially, objectively, and virtuously.
The movie “12 Angry Men” examines the dynamics at play in a United States jury room in the 1950’s. It revolves around the opinions and mindsets of twelve diverse characters that are tasked with pronouncing the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of patricide. The extraordinary element is that their finding will determine his life or death. This play was made into a movie in 1957, produced by Henry Fonda who played the lead role, Juror #8, and Reginald Rose who wrote the original screenplay. This essay will explore some of the critical thinking elements found within the context of this movie, and will show that rational reason and logic when used effectively can overcome the mostly ineffective rush to judgment that can be prevalent in a population. The juror that seemed interesting is Juror #8, who was played by Henry Fonda. Juror #8, or Davis, is an architect, the first dissenter and protagonist in the film. He was the first one to declare that the young man was innocent and he managed to convince the other jurors to see his point of view. Durkheim states that when we respond to deviance, it brings people together (Macionis, 2013, p. 159). We affirm the moral ties that bind us together, which was seen in the movie. At first, almost all of the jurors were so bent on convicting the young man based on their feelings, but they then started to analyze the facts and they came together to make their final decision.