Arguments Against Jury Trial

In the past, the jury learned from the forensic scientists’ testimony; but now, they’re learning from television and a lot of reality shows. Consequently, what they’re learning is not necessarily what is actually done (Honeycutt). However, those jurors who watch criminal investigation television shows do believe that what they’re seeing on TV is what does go on in real life and they expect to see it in court. This is because, according to Shelton, “the more frequently jurors watched a given program, the more accurate they perceived it to be.”

For those who do make it to trial a crucial step to having a fair trial is to have an unbiased jury, before the trial begins the prosecutor, judge, and defense attorney interview members of the jury pool in a process called voir dire. During voir dire the attorneys are given an unlimited amount of challenges for cause, which helps eliminate people who show a bias for one side or the other, for example the defendant’s sibling would not be allowed to serve on the jury because they are too closely related and would have a

During jury selection, potential jurors are interviewed then chosen or eliminated from the jury. The initial selection of potential jurors is completely random; citizens get “jury Duty” notices on a random basis. The screening of the jury selection is conducted by both the prosecution and the defense, and is overviewed by the judge on the case. During the interview, citizens are asked a number of strategic questions to ensure that they are not in any way bias for or against the defendant or case. The questions also eliminate those who have any connection to the case, in any way. It is during this interview that the lawyers on the case can voice their concerns regarding biased jurors.

Quoting the United States Declaration of Independence “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” It is because I support the founding principles of the United States and the protection of individual liberty that I affirm the resolution:

Jury-fact finding was found to be convenient so judges won’t be crammed so many with cases. In response to Blakely, jury-fact finding become the most popular modification in most states. Among these 13 states, no one was willing to overthrow the idea of presumptive sentencing. Most states intent on keeping their system because they believe that the system presents several benefits such as decreasing unwarranted sentence discrepancies, improving the liability of correctional resource necessities and forming stability and proportionality among

Jury nullification is when a jury returns a not guilty verdict, even when they believe that a defendant is guilty of the charge for which they are being prosecuted (Hall, 2015). A defendant can argue that the jury disregarded the law if the law is viewed as harsh or unfavorable (Hall, 2015). A prosecutor, nor a judge, may ask a jury to nullify. A jury can only be instructed to consider nullification by the defense (Hall, 2015). In the case of United States v. Dougherty (1972), nine people, including Dougherty, broke into a chemical company, damaging property as a way to protest the company’s support of the Vietnam War (United States v. Dougherty, n.d.).

Throughout one’s life many are prone to being in one of America’s many courtrooms at least once in their life. Whether it is for a parking ticket, a petty larceny charge, or simply jury duty most citizens have been in a courtroom once or twice. However, it is rare that one knows the many steps and processes that take place when a crime has been convicted. There is an excess number of elements that are introduced and just to name a few it all starts with the occurrence of the crime, then follows the arrest, proceeded by an arraignment, bail hearing and any more steps before finally reaching the final verdict that lands one with guilt or innocence (Neubrauer, Fadella 2013). Based on the laws in place by the United States and the Constitution one must be able to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is doubt at all in the jurors minds, they cannot convict the individual of being guilty and lately this has created a lot of controversy in the United States with many cases being tried. For example, the Casey Anthony case that took place in Florida was one of the most recent states where Common Law and the Constitution were unable to be reconcilable to prove one’s guilt.

This is one of the most supreme points written in the founding principles of our Declaration of Independence according to the American founding fathers, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin. This text in the Declaration of Independence explicitly upbraids King George III for depriving the people’s rights to a trial by jury. American law is focused around centuries of English common law, the collected assemblage of laws that are focused around common sense judgment and decisions and which safeguard the privileges of the individuals. Property proprietorship is a major right of free individuals, and common law creates the tenets we keep. In a lawful argument about property, citizens have a right to a jury trial.

Ever since the beginning of our country’s existence we have had this idea that every single person, despite whatever crime they had committed, were citizens regardless. Those citizens have rights, those rights included being innocent until proven guilty, and having the right to a trial by jury. We have fought to protect that last right particularly hard, however, only a very small percentage of cases these days are even seen by juries. So, is a trial by Jury really worth it? Or is it better to have a trial by a single judge? One might be led to think that a bench trial, or trial by judge, is the better option due to the extremely low volume of jury trials. However, that is not the case. Jury trials are better because they are less biased, they are more accurate, and they are fairer than bench trials.

Every second, there are millions of lawsuits taking places in the United States. There is a question that always needed to be asked: is it a fair trial? The answer depends on all kinds of variables, such as race, education, poverty, age, gender and so on. A jury selection always needs to consider and assess different variables. In addition, in a jury selection, the lawyers and the judge need to eliminate different bias in order to proceed with a fair trail. In the legal system, a jury selection is also referred as voir dire process, which originally translated to an oath taken by jurors to tell the truth. According to the Sixth Amendment, the Constitution provides the defendant in a criminal trial with the right to “ an impartial jury” (Benforado

A consortium of scholars conducted the Capital Jury Project (CJP), a large scale multistate research initiative in the 1980s, to find out what causes a jury to sentence death to some defendants but not to others. Devine and Kelly (2015) used the full data set of CJP which consisted of 1198 jurors from 335 capital trials held in 14 states. Certain conditions were set and observed for data collection and inclusion or exclusion of some particular factors.

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?

When felony charges do pass the proverbial common sense test with judges then proceedings for a trial will be established by one of two ways. If an offender feels that he or she is not guilty then he or she can request a trial by jury or in some case a bench trial where the defendant is tried by the judge. A trial by jury is usually the last step in a felony charge case and ultimately determines either innocence or guilt by unanimous verdict. The proponent of the jury will consist usually of twelve people who are randomly selected through a blind draw from a secretary of state list of licensed drivers (Nichols, n.d.). After the selection process is complete the potential jurors are administered “voir dire” or questions presented by the

Juries provide a public opinion which helps show what the public would think about the case and weather the accused is guilty or not guilty.

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.