Dbq Jury System

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.

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

The concept of the accused being assessed by their ‘peers’ is very appropriate as they judge merely based on the morals and principles of the society making the law more valid and binding. Whereas, ‘leaving the judgment to someone who doesn’t necessarily live in the real world’ (Love, 2014) may not be so appropriate. Also the‘ danger of getting rid of jury trials is that there will be a perception that someone who is an elite judge is going to be deciding matter, someone that may be in touch with the ordinary community’ (Harvey 2011). Hence, the jury system ensures the communities ethics, values and morals are implied and safeguards the law is applied in a way ‘that fits in with what the society expects’ (Love 2014).

The potential risk of a trial by jury is the opportunity for bias through the jury. While there is a selection process to remove the error of bias for the case, it still can happen. The jurors may be influenced by various things throughout the case that may result in their emotions and hearts being the decision maker versus their minds. Additionally, the jurors may not have prior experience or exposure to the type of information that is presented before them in court. This can become a limitation for the juror as they attempt to provide a proper response.

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.

The U.S. jury system is marked by its relatively strong credibility and positive public opinion. Two clear strengths of the jury system stem from this fact; the first being that juries generally reach reasonable verdicts on guilt or damages (in civil cases) and the second being that judges generally agree with the verdicts/sentencing recommendations reached by juries. However, the source of jury strength can also be a source of weakness. There is an explored by unexplained gap between judge opinion and jury opinion in some cases that leaves some scholars baffled (i.e. cases where judges and juries come to very different conclusions about a case). In addition to this, a sharp decline in juries resolving cases at both the federal and state levels

The jury selection processed is flawed and a week part of our criminal justice system. A famous or rich person is guilty of committing a crime and then uses their money for the best defense lawyer money can buy. This lawyer then plants unverifiable seeds of doubt in the jury’s minds and persuades them to believe that the defendant is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by implying, without proof, that there may have been another killer or killers. It’s so easy for the defense to deceive the jury because they intentionally pick jurors they know they can persuade and then they eliminate the jurors that may help the prosecution. The questionnaires for high profile cases are used to each side’s advantage.

In 2008 Casey Anthony was found not guilty of murder of her child Caylee Anthony (document D). She was on a jury trial and that everyone’s opinion was that she did it though she was proven not guilty by twelve men and women. They sought and decided that fairly that she was not guilty those everyone thought she was. In 1872 a man was dismissed for being a juror in a case because he had already had an opinion of the case (document F). The man was asked a series of questions that any other juror would be asked, but he had already formed an opinion. “I think it is really great that we have science, but we also have common sense (Joe Adamson document D). This person may think that science is good, but when it doesn’t help common sense is the go to plan. Without common sense that trial would have been have a disaster. This shows that the American jury system does not take just anyone to be a

When jury members think of a young, attractive female, they may pull to mind young women in college, studying and behaving in a pro-social manner. It may be difficult for jury members based on past and current examples of the defendant to see her committing a violent crime. The use of availability and representative heuristic by individual jury members may influence the jury to make a decision of innocence or guilt. Jury members are presented with information, and then asked to make a decision based on this information. The presentation of

For the past 45 years in the world of academia only 206 articles were published about jury simulations with the inclusion of jury deliberations (Devine, Clayton, Dunford, Seying & Pryce, 2001). This is a rate of about 4.6 articles per year, a very small number in comparison to all the articles that are published with out jury deliberations. Jury deliberations are an important aspect of juror studies. There has always been ongoing concern amongst researchers about whether jury decision-making can be adequately replicated and studied in the lab. In order to achieve this the focus has often been that if a representable sample is used then the results can be highly generalizable to the public. This paper will attempt to argue that differences between a student sample and community based sample in mock jury studies are minimal and that

What is your best idea for a realistic alternative to the traditional jury system in use in criminal trials in the U.S.?

A jury trial is most commonly used in criminal trials, but in some cases can be used in a civil trial. Steve Wilson et al. clarify that ‘during a trial, the judge directs the jury to the relevant principles of the law and evidence. The jury’s job in a trial is to determine issues of fact.’ A jury trial is considered to be the more impartial trial in a court of law as the jury reach their verdict based on facts they’ve heard rather than the law therefore taking things the judge alone would not take into consideration when trying the defendant. There are several advantages regarding trials by a jury, however, research shows there are also a range of disadvantages within these trials that may be a cause for concern if ever bought to the public eye. Throughout this essay analyses will be made on both the advantages and disadvantages of a jury trial and a conclusion will be drawn on how they can affect the jury trials and if this is an underlying problem within the English criminal justice system.

Throughout history no man nor congress created what would be known today as the Jury System. This system began as an open book for many to occupy, but no one really knew where they stood, until recently, now that it has evolved to the modern conditions presented in the country. The first sign of the jury system being used amongst the criminal justice system was when Democracy was first created. Melvyn Zerman, a publisher sales executive wrote a book Beyond a Reasonable Doubt where he examines the jury system in depth and gives a history overview where it all began. For this, Zerman began with the first encounter in history with a jury system. Around 4th century B.C., Athenians in Ancient Greece viewed their world as “a nation of lawyers and a nation without lawyers” (p. 15). The meaning “a nation of lawyers and a nation without lawyers” expands to a great matter that when the plaintiff and the defendant had an altercation they did not settle this through fighting. Better yet, they handled it in the most civilized way and that’s going to the court justices where each one had to become their own lawyer.

There have been several contemporary developments in the last century that have followed on from the jury system origins. Western Australia currently upholds a trial by jury system. In 1829, W.A. was settled as the Swan River Colony. Captain Stirling arrived in W.A., issuing a proclamation, which declared that the new colony would apply Britain statute law and common law. It didn’t take long until Stirling appointed eight free settlers to become justices of the peace, allowing them to now adjudicate criminal matters within this colony. At the first court sitting in 1830, the justices drew up a set of rules, that introduced the concept of juries. 1832 saw the Legislative Council enacting legislation that established not only a civil court, but

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.