Advantages Of The Jury System

The jury system of a trial is an essential element of the democratic process. It attempts to secure fairness in the justice system. Traditionally, the jury system has been viewed as a cornerstone of common law procedure. However, the use of the system of trial by jury is on the decline. Today, its use differs, depending on whether (a) it is a civil or criminal matter, and (b) in criminal matters, whether it is a summary or an indictable offence.

In considering the effectiveness of the jury system, it is first necessary to understand the roles of juries. Primarily, a jury is a body of legally unqualified citizens who agree on a verdict based on evidence

In the United States, we let the people decide – not who the president will be, though. We let everyday people decide whether or not someone is guilty of a crime. The jury system has been around for ages (dating back hundreds of years in England) and probably will be for a long time. But is the system still working? Is it worth it? Should we continue to use juries to decide cases? The jury system shouldn’t remain an option because jurors tend to be incompetent, it’s not really worth the effort, and jurors aren’t professionally educated to decide on these cases.

Every day people are convicted of crimes or arrested for other reasons. Once they are convicted they are summoned to court, this begins the jury process. Citizens are randomly chosen to serve on jury duty. The citizens on the jury will use the jury system to determine if the person being accused is guilty or innocent. Trials can become very long or they can be short it just depends on the topic and how long it takes to decide on what the consequences will be. The jury system is the main trial and the main decision of whether or not someone is right or wrong.

I do not believe that the way the jury is selected and the way it operates is the correct way to do it. I believe this due to the fact that not much is known about the people who are selected and that they have no experience in Law. This means that they might not understand the case and they could even be a bit biased.

We should not have a professional jury system because it simply doesn't work for our government system. If we were to have a professional jury system, jurors would be biased, lazy and experiences with past cases would interfere. Although there would be different jurors with different histories on a panel, Jurors would be biased because they would all have the same education telling them what is right and wrong. The same textbook would be deciding whether a person is guilty, or not guilty. Another circumstance where a juror would be biased is race. If a white male were to be convicting and black male, it could easily fly under the radar that the white male juror is holding a grudge. Many black males and minorities would be discriminated against

Those a part of the American jury system tend to base their decisions on opinions rather than actually analyzing the facts. Those on the jury may not be qualified to acquit someone. In the novel written by Mark Twain he asserts that even though people on the jury take an oath, but they

The jury system has been used in the criminal trial since the Constitution stated “the trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury.”

There are certain aspects of the United States’ government that seem to be at the core of ensuring democracy for all citizens. These ideas include representative leaders like the President, or the bicameral legislature. Similarly, the jury system is another structure of the government that many people hold close to their hearts. Although it seems like the ultimate way that the citizens can self-govern, is the jury system really the best way to reach a verdict in civil and/or criminal cases? The bottom line is that the jury system is an outdated structure. Specifically, bench trials, or trials decided only by a judge, are much more effective than jury trials because judges are more educated, less susceptible to popular influence, and are not

The history in England and Europe was of people being sentenced to lengthy prison terms, tortured or even killed in secret trials. If you were accused in this situation, you often had no chance to defend yourself and the charges were often trumped up to eliminate political and religious dissent. By requiring a jury to be involved in a trial, serious and sometimes fatal decisions are taken out of the hands of one or a few judges, and are put into the hands of a group of average citizens who look over the evidence. This greatly reduces the possibility of corruption in the trial. For many years, all juries in America had twelve people, which is how juries were conducted during the time the Constitution was written. Eventually, though, the Supreme Court reduced the allowable size of juries in state trials down to a minimum of six. Federal trials must still have twelve jurors. The Court also removed the requirement that juries be unanimous in their decisions in state courts. Instead, 10-2 or 9-3 verdicts are now accepted. Federal court juries, however, must be unanimous.

In a bench trial, a criminal is brought before one person, a judge, who decides both guilt and a sentence depending on that guilt. While it could be argued that a judge is going to be less biased than a stranger that might have some sort of emotional tie to the case depending on the suspect, the type of crime, or even the location it took place at. That’s true, and it is more likely for a random person to have some kind of bias than a professional judge. However, the jury consists of 12 people. It is much more likely for a single judge to have some kind of bias toward a subject and have total control over the situation, than it is for the entirety of the 12-man jury to have that same kind of bias. The fact that the jury has to come to an agreement puts a 12-way checks and balance system to the decisions that need to be made in that

In the Australian legal system, juries have been the subject of debate for many years. Should we have them for criminal trials or will justice be done better through trial by judge alone?

You have been charged with an either way offence this means that you will get the choice as to whether you trial your case at the Magistrates or Crown Court. In this report I will evaluate the effectiveness of lay people presenting their advantages and disadvantages. I will also evaluate the jury system. As I have explained either way offences can either be very serious or very minor, which is why they are tried at the Crown Court or Magistrates’.

A jury is a group of 12 people aged between 18 and 70 who have been randomly selected from the electoral roll. Juries are only used for indictable criminal offences, these cases are held in either the District or Supreme court.

The right to a trial by jury is a core element of the United States Criminal Justice System. This right is guaranteed to all citizens by the highest law of the land: The United States Constitution. But are juries truly an effective means of securing justice? The movie 12 Angry Men provides commentary on this question with its portrayal of twelve jurors deliberating over a murder case. The jury initially seems bound to condemn the defendant, a young man of nineteen years, to the electric chair, but a single man, Juror no. 8 descents against the majority. Over the course of the film, tensions rise, and after much debate Juror no. 8 manages to convince the other eleven jurors to eventually vote not guilty. Through their debates and casual side conversations, we are shown the role of personal biases and group manipulation tactics that can impede with objective analysis and ultimately the attainment of justice. Thus, the Movie 12 Angry Men mostly serves to challenge the jury system as a means of securing justice by demonstrating the harmful effects of personal biases, the lack of dedication to the system, and the potential for manipulative tactics.