Jury Of Peers: The Jury System In America

Similarly ,In Twelve Angry Men Juror 8 is a smart and moral juror who is willing to stand against all the other jurors for what he thinks is right. He is the main protagonist who believes a boy accused with murdering his father deserves a discussion prior to a guilty verdict. Although all the other jurors initially voted guilty, juror 8 believed that the jurors should not “send a boy off to die without talking about it first”(Juror 8, 12). Throughout the play Juror 8 combats the pressure from the other Jurors to just vote guilty and manages to convince his fellow Jurors one by one that there in fact is “reasonable doubt”(Judge, 6) and convinces them to arrive at a “not guilty”(Juror 3, 72) verdict. Reginald Rose extols Juror 8’s pursuit of justice through his success. Not only did Juror 8 stand by his principles and have the courage to stand against all the other Jurors, he also had the wits to convince his fellow jurors to change their verdict. Through these actions Juror 8 brings justice to the courts of New York city saving the life of a young boy.

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.

The film “12 Angry Men” gives the audience insight as to how jury deliberations work. The film follows 12 jurors throughout the process of finding the defendant’s sentencing. The jury is overseeing a case surrounding a young boy who is charged with the murder of his father. It was interesting to see the process of this paired with the way each character’s vote had an effect on each of the other juror’s decisions. The film “12 Angry Men” portrays a realistic fluctuation of stances in a room of jurors as a whole and individually based upon the prior experiences and ethics of each juror.

The current jury system is based on an almost millennium-old principle found in the Magna Carta (1215). As a result of changes in society since, the system must be seen as potentially outdated. In other words, it may not satisfy the needs of modern society, judged by what the major stakeholders of the criminal justice system expect. Indeed, there are substantial flaws in current jury systems in terms of effectiveness. The two major concerns with jury systems are their representativeness and their levels of competence. The representativeness of juries is essential as their reason for existing is to represent the views of society. Having twelve jurors could be understood to ensure representativeness and eliminate room for bias. However, this does not remove the possibility of juries being biased towards parties. Even if the potential jurors contacted are representative in terms of gender, ethnicity, age and socioeconomic status and though jury duty is a compulsory engagement, 90% of Queenslanders opt out of it. This makes it very likely that juries will not be representative. One example is ethnic diversity. There is likely to be less ethnic diversity in courts because ethnic minorities might not have sufficient language ability or access to interpreters to be jurors. Another example is age. It is likely that retired people

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

Also it promotes civic virtue and an opportunity for democratic selfgovernment. Document C Analysis • 4. By serving on a jury • 5. This document argues strongly for the civic and democratic values of juries and jury service. The jury system benefits those who serve, those whose cases appear before it, and democracy itself.

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.

On one hand many critics argue that the American jury system is no longer a good idea. On the other hand, some may disagree and say the American jury system is still a good idea. According to this view, one can readily agree that the American jury system gives the people a say in what is relevant to today. “The role of jury service in promoting self-governance and civic participation...the United States Constitution viewed jury service as a critically important feature of self-governance and enshrined [guaranteed] the right to serve on juries in the Seventh Amendment” (Document C). While the essence of John Weiser is that the jury system promotes civic participation, such a stance is invalid because their judgement can be clouded. Therefore, even though the American jury system does have its benefits, the jurors choice whether the convicted should be punished can be

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.

Juries allow and force the public to have a personal knowledge of court proceedings, protect against the bias of a single person, and provide the public with certainty that there is not corruption in our judicial system. No human system of justice is perfect, but I believe that what Benjamin Franklin said regarding the Constitution also applies to our jury system, “It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does” (Benjamin Franklin to the Federal Convention).

The jury system and how it works is crucial to sentencing and how cases are solved. Most criminal trials require twelve jurors. The reason it’s done this way is because it’s believed that the more people there are exercising their own perception and judgement it leads to a greater chance of a fair

While evaluating the advantages of a plea jury I found that a plea jury would be under the supervision of the courts and the defendant would give his plea to a guilty plea jury (Appleman, 2010). The plea jury would then decide on the facts to see if the allegations fit the offense, whether the plea was knowing and voluntary and if the sentence proposed is appropriate for the offense. Also, I found that a plea jury’s critical role would be to listen to the defendant’s allocutions instead of explaining his offenses to the judge.

From its early stages to this, the system of trial by jury has become the central tenet of our belief in a justice centered law. Our ideal of equal justice for all most likely could not have evolved without the strong belief in the wisdom of the jury. Although trial by jury was

Jury of peers is basically a right given to a defendant, in which the jury of one’s peers must mean equal. The jurors presented does not exclude any particular individual because of race or has any intention of excluding possible jurors. No biased participants in the jury, because this will lead to a biased verdict. These participants can share similarities such as age, gender, or be on the same level as the defendant.

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.