Importance Of The Jury System

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.

There are numerous debates for and against the reinstatement of the jury system. A jury system will lessen the pressure that is placed upon a judge. A number of opinions are more likely to lead to a just decision than one deciding opinion. A jury can prevent an individual bias that the judge might have towards a specific party. It would help to legitimise our legal system by bringing democracy into the courts. By making the legal system more accessible the ordinary South Africans will provide them with an opportunity to get to know the rule of law.

In considering the effectiveness of the jury system, it is first necessary to understand the roles of juries. Primarily, a jury is a body of legally unqualified citizens who agree on a verdict based on evidence

Every day people are convicted of crimes or arrested for other reasons. Once they are convicted they are summoned to court, this begins the jury process. Citizens are randomly chosen to serve on jury duty. The citizens on the jury will use the jury system to determine if the person being accused is guilty or innocent. Trials can become very long or they can be short it just depends on the topic and how long it takes to decide on what the consequences will be. The jury system is the main trial and the main decision of whether or not someone is right or wrong.

Those a part of the American jury system tend to base their decisions on opinions rather than actually analyzing the facts. Those on the jury may not be qualified to acquit someone. In the novel written by Mark Twain he asserts that even though people on the jury take an oath, but they

The jury system has been used in the criminal trial since the Constitution stated “the trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury.”

The heart of the American Judicial System is the determination of the innocence or guilt of the accused. At the beginning of the play, the jurors all feel that the man is guilty for murdering his father and they all wanted to convict him without carrying out a detailed discussion. The persistence of juror eight, however, plays a significant role in ensuring that the correct and fair verdict is delivered. The judicial system maintains that the defendant does not have an obligation to prove his innocence. The fact is not clear to everyone as Juror 8 reminds Juror 2 about it. The fact is a key element of the judicial system and assists in the process of coming up with a verdict. The defendant is usually innocent until proven guilty. Another element of the judicial system that comes out in the play is for a verdict to stand it must be unanimous. Unanimity ensures that the

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

Fundamental to the American adjudicatory process is a jury trial. A jury has been described as a convention of a sworn body of people with the aim

The jury system was instituted in the United States so that instead of a judge determining a person’s sentence, a group of peers in that community would do so. You see, now in that case, I believe the jury system is a great advantage for the sentencing because you now know

The system has the advantage of having citizens become triers of the fact. They are not agents of the government so jurors have less bias then the judges. Additionally, the jury system lets citizens be involved in the their justice system. However, the jury system has the disadvantage of having citizens become triers of the fact even though many do not understand the law or the legal process. Some cases can also be very traumatic for jurors, who lack exposure to violent crime pictures or evidence. (Siegel, Schmalleger, and Worrall, 2017, p. 368). Furthermore, juries may still act on their personal biases, especially when the evidence presented are too vague for them to render verdicts (Siegel, Schmalleger, and Worrall, 2017, p. 365). We have

A jury is a group of 12 people aged between 18 and 70 who have been randomly selected from the electoral roll. Juries are only used for indictable criminal offences, these cases are held in either the District or Supreme court.

The jury system is highly relevant to today’s society. Magna Carta was the beginning that led to the essential concept of trial by juries. Since then, the idea has become more and more commended and is an important part of Australian law. Although Magna Carta was grated 800 years ago, the concept of trials is even more immense than ever predicted. It allows the community to participate in a vital way before the accused is convicted of the serious crime. The system also applies common values of society and allows them to determine what’s right and wrong. It has also had 800 years of success and so far is not failing Australia in any way. The concept is growing and becoming more and more important for the protection of individual human rights.

This essay will be looking at the advantages and disadvantages of the jury trial. Jury trial is a legal proceeding where a jury makes a decision, which then direct the actions of a judge. The members of a jury are a group of independent citizens. They have no interest in the case before them, nor is their judgment coloured by regular experience of the business of the court. They are “twelve individuals, often with no prior contact with the courts, who are chosen at random to listen to evidence and decide upon matters affecting the reputation and liberty of those charged with criminal offences.” The jury has always been drawn from sections of society but has been made democratic only in the last half century. And now almost all citizen of the United Kingdom are eligible to serve on a jury. But the percentage of criminal cases actually tried by jury is surprisingly low. Nowadays “the magistrates’ courts deal with at least 95 per cent of criminal cases. In practice juries determine the outcome of less than 1 per cent of the total of the criminal cases.” But still the idea of trial by jury has always been seen as a “cornerstone of the English legal system” , and it remains the standard mode of trial for dealing with the most serious types of criminal case. But even though it is established and been in practice for years, people seem to believe that there are disadvantages to jury trails. Nonetheless, the jury system is becoming increasingly controversial. Critics claim that

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.