When it comes to becoming a juror, people are not given the decision whether or not they would like to be in the juror pool. If the duty to serve as a juror is ignored, it could result in legal action. The legal action will consist of a warrant and jail time for anyone who ignores their duty. That being said, if people are obligated to serve in the juror pool, I believe their privacy should be protected at all times. Unfortunately, that’s not the case today. Every American today have the authority to have access to personal information with regards to the jurors, according to the first amendment (LaMance, 2016). The access of public information, in my opinion, could not only jeopardize the case, but also be a safety concern as well. In other words, the dangers of the right …show more content…
When the media hears about crime committed, the first thing they like to do is discuss the incident on the television. That, however, could get out of hand at times because of the ratings. The ratings, at times, have the ability to go up or go down. As much as the media would like the ratings to remain high at all times, unfortunately that doesn’t always happen. The media may face conflicts when it comes to ratings and will do whatever that’s needed to lure the viewers (Beale, 2006). That being said, the media may go to the extent of following the juror in an attempt to attract viewers despite the unethical nature of the act. Despite the benefit of having high ratings, the Code of Practice requires that the media don’t harass journalist in any shape or form when they are told to stay away from their territory (“How the PCC Can Help You,” 2016). Just because the Code of Practice is enforced in a daily basis among journalist, it doesn’t mean that every journalist will follow it. Due to all the danger that jurors are exposed to before and after a criminal proceeding, I believe that they should be given a choice whether or not their personal information should be exposed to
Serving on a jury is a civic duty and an American tradition. However, some people view jury duty as a chore or as an event that negatively interrupts their lives. Some independent studies have shown that even jury duty has a devastating effect on married life. Due to this and other extraneous situations, there are only a few people who actually want to serve on a jury. This may lead to efforts by potential jurors to, in some way get out of their duty in a jury. What we know of as the current jury duty system should be changed so citizens are not forced to serve in this capacity and can still be regarded as a responsible civilian. As per the status quo, a trial jury is a constitutional right, a jury of ones peers or equals. However,
Inside a room where life or death decisions are made, twelve men sit with wandering thoughts. The made up minds of some jurors are to send a boy to his death without a second thought, but one other juror may change that. Inside of the play Twelve Angry Men written by Reginald Rose, Juror 8 has the persuasive evidence to change the minds of his fellow Jurors and save a boy from his execution. The other Juror’s seem like they won’t budge with their mind set on the decision of guilty, but after Juror 8 proves his thoughts on the decision of innocent, he may just be able to save a young life.
For this essay I asked my Grandma Diane questions about jury duty. She has never served on a jury but she has been summonsed to questioning to possibly be on one. When she got the summons letter she wasn’t excited, “ I didn’t want to do it, because I didn’t feel that I [had] the right to judge anyone else,” and didn’t really want to go. She got asked questions like, “Could you be impartial? Could you be fair? If “this” happened would you say that the person is guilty? Are you related to the person/persons involved? Have you heard anything about the case?,” the attorneys asked these questions because they wanted to make sure they had a jury that would make an unbiased decision in the court case. My grandma said that, “It made [her] respect what
In conclusion we should keep the jury system just find a better way to question potential jurors. Citizens should have the right to serve in jury duty and decide whether a fellow citizen is guilty or innocent. This will give the citizens and their family a peace knowing that a criminal was proven guilty. Since the jury system has been intact for so long they should just make some minor changes. These minor changes would not only help the citizens but the community as
Juries in NSW The jury system plays a very important part in the running of the courts. The jury system is needed in both criminal and civil cases. There are advantages of the jury system as well as disadvantages.
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.
Juries are a crucial and irreplaceable part of the American justice system. The jury system has been around for hundreds of years. Our founding fathers viewed jury service as a critical part of democracy and self government. Twelve ordinary citizens make up the jury and will form a decision about the case. The jury system is still needed in the twenty-first century because it ensures the accused gets a fair trial and it promotes civic participation.
Trial by jury can be traced back to the 12th Century and has been an integral part of the criminal justice system since Henry II favoured it over trial by ordeal (Davies, Croall and Tyrer 2010, p.311). Although they are used in both crown court trials and civil cases, the introduction of the Administration of Justice Act 1933 has reduced the use of juries in civil cases significantly (Joyce 2013, p.208). However, they are only used in about one third of cases in the Crown Court (Huxley-Binns and Martin, p.220). Since the 19th Century, the statutory provisions for jury service have been amended and revised considerably resulting in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Throughout this essay I will be firstly discussing who is eligible to sit on a
Juries exists in the criminal trial to listen to the case presented to them and, as a third, non-bias party, decide beyond reasonable doubt if the accused is guilty. For the use of a trial by juror to be effective, no bias should exists in the jurors judgments, the jurors should understand clearly their role and key legal terms, and the jury system should represent the communities standards and views whilst upholding the rights of the accused and society and remain cost and time effective.
There is no information out there for people to read or hear about what jury duty is. There are too many different areas of the jury system. With this people are able to find ways to get out of having to go through jury duty. This leads to shortage of citizens to participate in jury duty. Canada is such a multicultural country and yet so little of it is shown throughout jury duty. The majority of people who are chosen to serve as a juror are your typical Canadian citizen. The Canadian jury system currently has a good structure but with this there is always room for improvement. In order to improve the current system the public need to be more aware of their civic responsibility to serve on a jury, In addition, the jury selection process must be simplified so that it is easier to find those who are capable and willing to be jurors. Finally, in order for it to be truly effective juries must better represent the diversity of the Canadian
Although many states have investigated the effects of disqualify people with disabilities from jury service and made recommendations for law reforms in the area, apart from Western Australia, no state has taken active measures to implement the recommendations proposed. In Western Australia, people with disabilities are no longer automatically disqualified from jury service. The Western Australian courts have shown their willingness to allow people with disabilities to participate as juror by the recent case of Drisana Levitzke-Gray which captured the attention of many media outlets. The courts allowed Ms Levitzke-Gray, with the assistance of an Auslan interpreter to participate in the jury selection process. Although Ms Levitzke-Gray was not ultimately empanelled as part of the final jury, her experience is the first of its kind in Australia and has shown the courts willingness to provide accommodations to people who are capable for performing their democratic duties.
Since the series revolves around real life events that occurred, it is quite accurate how the criminal justice is represented. In the series, we see everything that we would see in the criminal justice field, for instance the courtroom actors such as the judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, bailiffs, courtroom clerk, and jury. Everyone in the O.J. Simpson was important and they all received more attention than they should have, but the ones who got the most attention and had the biggest role in this case was the jury. Jury selection is selected from the eligible population over the age of 18 who has complied from the DMV. There is a voir dire that process by which jury members are selected, attorneys and judge seek to gain information about
A trial can be deemed unfair if the jury is swayed by emotions. Strong emotions such as prejudice, disgust, confusion, vengeance and stubbornness can affect the outcome of a case. If emotions change the outcome rather than actual evidence presented to the jury, the trial will be unfair to the defendant.
It said that “The traditional bar on jurors actively looking for information about a trial, or making their own investigations, comes under increasing strain now that the Internet makes it possible to look up at least some amount of any person’s history, or to find out fact-specific information about the case that might have been much harder to find out pre-Internet.” It shows how the Juror’s tries to get information from investigation, but with since we have internet it’s harder to get information, or the opposite how it might be much harder without the internet. It also brings up how the jury system can bring criticism about the Jury system. “The Jury system too has attracted criticism. Some of those worried about the excesses of the tort system, for example, have Is the Jury System being Fair to the
The Selection and Role of a Jury in a Criminal Trial This assignment focuses on how a jury is selected and its role in a