Criminal Trials : An Adversary System Of Justice

The criminal trial process aims to provide justice for all those involved, while it succeeds in the majority of cases, it effectiveness is influenced and reduced by certain factors. These include the legal representation involved in a case and the availability of legal aid, the capacity of the jury assessing the trial, the credibility of scientific evidence and the impact of social media on the trial process. Due to such flaws the criminal trial process is not always an effective means of achieving justice.

Courts are established social, political, and judicial institutions necessary for the manifestation of justice and the maintenance of law and order. The courts are part of the judicial branch of government, as outlined in Article III of the United States Constitution. Courts are the arenas in which the law is tried and applied. Judges are the presiding officers of the court. The United States Supreme Court is the most fundamental court because has "the authority to decide the constitutionality of federal laws and resolve other disputes over them," (United States Courts, 2012). This is true even though even though the court does not expressly enforce that law; enforcement is the province of the executive branch.

The role of the judge in the adversary system of trial, unlike the inquisitorial counterpart, has less involvement in the establishment of facts and the analysis of evidence in cases brought before the court. In the inquisitorial system of trial, the judge has a much more active role in relation to the handling and evaluation of evidence, and where relevant, can actually cross examine and question witnesses if they feel crucial evidence may have been missed. While the inquisitorial system of trial has a seemingly more intrusive judge, having an added legal expert questioning and raising areas where evidence may have been missed, is a significant improvement over a judge who may know evidence has been missed but cannot intervene such is the

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 selected from the general population; they are to be a representation of the people from that area. In trials with a jury, the first step is the selection of jurors. The jury selection process starts with something called voir dire, which is Latin for “to speak the truth”. Voir dire is where either the lawyers or the judge ask potential jurors questions about matters deemed to be significant to the trial. The judge may be asked to dismiss a juror for cause by the lawyer if incompetence or likely bias has been proven. (Baum, 2013) For example, a juror can be dismissed for cause if he or she is related to anyone involved in the case including the defendant or a lawyer, or if a company that is part of the lawsuit employs him or her. Each lawyer may request the dismissal of jurors for cause with no limit. (American Bar Association, 2016) Both sides are allowed a limited number of peremptory challenges, which are how a juror can be dismissed without having to show cause. The lawyer is to dismiss because they believe the person to be unable to serve in the best interest of the client not because of race or sex. (American Bar

If during all of this process no agreement or deal has been made it goes to trial. “A trail is the proceeding during which the government and the defense present evidence to prove or disprove the charges” (Victim Assistance, 2013). If the defendant chooses to have a trial by jury than the jury selection process begins. “Twelve jurors are selected randomly from the jury pool, a list of potential jurors compiled from voter registration records of people living in the district” (Steps in the Federal Criminal Process, 2015). An ideal jury should consist of all types of people from different races and cultures (Steps in the Federal Criminal Process, 2015). Each attorney asks each potential jury member questions about their prejudices to help them decide whether or not they want them on the jury (Steps in the Federal Criminal Process, 2015). The judge is there to make sure that the attorneys are fair with their questions, and that the jury selection ends up fair and impartial.

Since the jury is a group of twelve people, it is safe to assume that they will come from different backgrounds, educational levels, religions, and ethnic groups. This does not mean that all diverse groups will be represented, but it is enough to offer diverse perspectives. This variety helps to eliminate any undue prejudice or bias that could be present in either a small group or single individual. Because these people have no association with anyone involved in the trial, they have no personal or financial reason to be biased. They will not be personally impacted by the outcome of the trials. This should result in an unbiased decision by the jury. A positive side effect of the jury system is that it affords the jurors a basic knowledge and education of the judicial system. Other than voting, it is the jury system that provides the most citizens an opportunity to be involved in government. Although we can learn about the judicial process in books, the experience of being a part of the system by participating on a jury is a more meaningful way of understanding the

The first phase of a criminal jury trial is focused on selecting specific jurors, which is accomplished through a process referred to as 'voir dire' which is a screening of potential jurors. In the criminal trial involving an offense categorized as a felony "12 jurors and up to six alternate jurors may be chosen." (3rd Judicial District, ) Voir dire of the jury involves the prosecuting and defense attorneys questioning the potential jurors and

During the jury trial, the accused person will be represented either by a paid lawyer of his or her choice or by a court-appointed one. During the trial it is solely upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused person, and it is up to the accused person and his representation to rebut the information the prosecution presents. When the jury has heard all of the evidence against the accused person, they will decide on whether the person is guilty or not guilty. If the accused person is found guilty by the jury, he or she will be sentenced according to the law. If the accused person is found not guilty by the jury, he or she will be able to return back into society as a free person.

The criminal trial process has many aspects which aim to balance the rights of victims, offenders and society, including plea bargains and charge negotiations, the ability of defendants to hire legal representation and complete and partial defences. However, these processes do not always succeed in completely achieving justice for victims, offenders and society.

The jury system in the United States of America plays an important role in our society. The jury system that we have seeks to benefit the public, it also seeks to give anyone accused of a crime the right to be judged by a group of their peers. To many Americans, the right to a trial by jury is seen as a glimmer of freedom and one which all citizens should continue to enjoy. This is backed by our Constitution and by each State’s Constitution and their Amendments, which “guarantees them the right to a trial by a jury of their peers.”(Jones, n.d.) . Consistently though, the jury system falls under attacks from critics who do not agree that this is the best option and seek to abolish, or at least limit that right.

The 18th century was the beginning of the age of enlightenment. Because of this new way of thinking, changes were made in the penal system. Before the age of enlightenment, physical punishment was the main form of deterrence for current and potential offenders. During the age of enlightenment, the influential leaders of the criminal justice system began to gravitate towards methods of reforming the offender. These influential people include Cesare Beccaria, Jeremy Bentham, and John Howard.

Imagine you are a teen walking down the street with a friend. Now imagine being surrounded by police and getting searched for something that is not there. Since the item in question can not be placed the accuser changes their story; After multiple versions of what allegedly happened the police arrest you and your friend. Due to having a history of theft, a judge charges you with second degree robbery, even though there is no evidence to prove any wrong doing. Thinking the justice system will come through, and knowing your innocence, a trial is requested. Bail is set and cannot be paid due to economic hardship. Another consequence of not having money for bail, is there is also no money for a private attorney. A public defender, who has to many cases to keep straight, is assigned to help defend in court, yet he is trying to lessen his load and recommends several times that a plea deal is the best option that should be taken, even in the case of innocence. Picture holding out hope that if the case could just go to trial all would come to light. Four years pass by, mostly spent in solitary confinement, where the harsh circumstances begin to take a toll, mentally and physically. Imagine conditions so horrible, death seems better than enduring another day. Now picture the day for “justice” is finally here. No sooner does court get started it ends. The case gets thrown out due to the person who started all of this not being present. All the suffering that has been endured,

Now we come to the importance of a fair trial and due process in the criminal justice system; it is rather surprising that the Sharia Law does not have a due process or trial procedure. According to the V, VI, and VII Amendments, all people shall be granted justice regardless of their religion or gender (Cotran and Adel, 1999). Amendment V specifically mentions that no one should be held responsible for a crime when the due process of the law has not been followed. Similarly, Amendment VI provides the room for public trial while Amendment VII guarantees trial by jury. All these amendments are checks and balances for the united States criminal justice system, to ensure that no one is punished unfairly for crimes they did not commit and that

Also prior to the trial, a jury of 6 to 12 people must be selected. Each jury member must go through a screening process to ensure that they have no connection to the trial, or any preconceived opinion of it that could keep them from being impartial to either side. A juror can be removed if they have any connection to the trial, and the defense