Explain The Potential Risk Of A Trial By Jury

"Today, jurors sometimes leave courtrooms in tears after convicting people they believed were morally (if not legally) innocent, or after witnessing the harsh sentences handed down by judges at the sentencing phase of seemingly minor cases. That is exactly the sort of travesty trial by jury was intended to prevent. If the law were just and justly applied, jurors would have no reason to regret their verdicts, or the sentences that are meted out later by judges." (Trial by Jury Website) This would seemingly encourage the American judicial system to adapt the jury system to meet the needs of our current American society. It is unpleasant for the jurors to make very hard choices concerning the lives of other fellow citizens. It is also hard for the persons who are standing trial to know that their fate is going to rest with people with little or no knowledge of the law.

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.

One reason why jury trials shouldn’t be an option is because jurors are incompetent. The cartoon of Document E isn’t just humorous, it’s also pretty true. Jurors are forced

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

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

This process not only ensures due process, but it also provides the best means of ensuring an impartial jury. The process provides lawyers the opportunity to review possible jurors and gives them the opportunity to have a say in the selection process. Any jurors that the lawyers feel can be detrimental to the case, can be removed from the jury selection process.

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.

Based on the United States Constitution, all citizens have the right to a “Trial by Jury,” which is a legal proceeding in which a jury makes a decision in order to direct the actions of a judge. A jury pool is randomly selected first, and then the potential jurors are notified. After, “Voir Dire,” or jury selection, occurs where twelve people are chosen for jury duty.

In today’s society of law it is preferable to have a jury trial than a bench trial. For many reasons a jury trial is preferable than a bench trial because there are 12 mind's that decide if the defendant is guilty or not. The defendant only needs one juror to save their life because it would be a hung jury. The jurors need to be 12 to zero to have the defendant guilty or not guilty. It is easier to have a jury a trial than a bench trial because in a bench trial the defendant has to look like they did the crime while in a jury trial 12 jurors are hearing the testimony and they could decide from there if the defendant is guilty or not. All the jurors need is a reasonable doubt to say the defendant is not guilty while the bench trial the judge

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.

The criminal justice system relies heavily on the plea bargain. In order for the system to work the majority of defendant's must admit guilt and agree to a plea bargain for a lesser crime or sentence. (Pollack, 2015). It helps both the prosecutor and the client to accept a plea bargain deal. While many agree of the pros in plea bargaining such as reducing which cases go to trial and high conviction rates. It is also the least costly trial method. In the US felonies are much more likely to take a plea bargain than to not. While plea bargaining causes more innocent people to plead guilty it also gives defense attorney's heavier caseloads, limited resources, and leads to over criminalization. The advantages of having a plea jury would be to give

It provides the certain power to the community to make a political decisions on being guilty or not guilty while satisfying individuals with the decision .Jurors decisions on verdicts are more likely to not be incorrect as there are 12 on the stand, whereas judge alone trials rely on one person on the decision of the verdict . The Bureau of Criminal statistics also show that even judge alone trials show higher acquittal rates than Jury trials in criminal cases . Another research conducted by the Australian Institute of Criminology state the findings that empanelled jurors reported significantly higher confidence when it comes to criminal trials than non- empanelled jurors

All the jury must agree on a verdict, if this is not possible then 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.

Trial by Jury and Alternatives to It In order to decide whether or not trial by jury should or should not