Jury Pros And Cons

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.

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.

Jury nullification is the act of a jury in exonerating a defendant, even though they are truly guilty of violating the law. When this happens, the defendant is found innocent, even though without an act of jury nullification they would have been found guilty. Normally, jury nullification is carried out by a jury that disagrees with a law; this is a way of indicating their disagreement with the law, and their choice not to penalize the person who broke that law. Jury nullification is a

C#1 Jury Nullification allows the jury to apply justice and preserve the rights of the defendants in the case of unconventional circumstance. In some cases laws are taken out of circumstance or misapplied. Jury nullification acts as a check on a despotic legal system by interpreting laws as an empathetic human being rather than words on a piece of paper. An example of this being applied is if you were to see a friend choking through their window, you then proceeded to smash their window in order to save the person from dying. After saving your friend they turn around and accuse you of damage to private property. In this scenario if the law were to be interpreted literally you would be jailed. However, any reasonable jury would interpret the case and rule not guilty based on circumstance that written law cannot account for. It is clearly more just to protect the rights of individuals rather than interpret laws devoid of circumstance which they cannot possibly account

Jury nullification has since quite a while ago entranced courts, scholastics, and society when all is said in done. The force, or possibly right, of a jury to either convict or absolve a criminal litigant, in spite of the jury 's conviction that the law and proof request an opposite result, has mixed debate since its beginning, and keeps on polarizing. As it as of now stands, nullification possesses a position in the sundown, authoritatively denounced by the United States Supreme Court, yet permitted even urged to get by different, enduring assurances of choice jury making. Resounding the conclusions of courts around the nation, juries without a doubt have no privilege to invalidate, however, they likewise most likely have the ability to do as such, as nobody, not even the judge, is permitted to do much to control a rebel jury in a criminal trial. What 's more, finds, that while in many occasions nullification is

America boasts an unsurpassed justice system. Unlike many Eastern countries, America presumes the defendant “innocent until proven guilty”. The Fourth Amendment protects all individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures, and a valid search warrant must be obtained from a magistrate after proving probable cause. Additionally, in America criminals can be vindicated if the prosecution fails to prove their criminal guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Furthermore, the Sixth Amendment provides the accused with a right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury; thus, a hung jury results in a mistrial. Its purpose is explained in the landmark Supreme Court decision Apodaca v. Oregon: “… [T]he purpose of trial by jury is to prevent

Juries have been utilized in the system of law and order for more than 1000 years. Their original purpose was to provide local insight and information that acted more as a witness rather than final decisions. By the late 15th Century, the jury system had been recognized as an important faction in the legal system and had become independent as it matured from simple witness to decider of fact. Consequently, the jury system became undeniably important following the Revolutionary War. The right to trial by jury was symbolic in the sense that it represented the overthrown power of the king.

In the United States, the Americans considered the jury as a political institution, in which the system brought the citizens to become conscious about the community. Due to individualism spread among the Americans, the citizens were becoming aware of their own interests instead of the interests of the whole community. Somehow, the jury has

A jury system allows citizens to be involved in the government by participating in a trial by jury. Allowing citizens to be involved in a jury system shows

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.

Jury duty is lampooned frequently in the popular culture as being a dreadfully boring waste of time and energy that keeps us all away from the more important things in life such as family, work, and getting drunk. Indeed, most of the time, juries see cases that are often dull and certain. Unfortunately, not all cases can be high profile, riveting murder cases that Nancy Grace can shrill on and on about for months on end. Perhaps worst of all, it is something that we are forced to do, and Americans tend to not like being forced to do things. However, there is no better way to grant impartiality to criminal procedures than the jury system. The jury system allows us, the average American, to have our say in the criminal justice process in perhaps the most important role: we can determine whether or not a person is guilty of a crime and we can do so uninhibited by our own personal biases, the biases of judges, and the biases of the federal government.

The responsibility of the jury in criminal and civil cases is to “determine questions of fact” and apply law as set out by the judge and then, with these facts and evidence, come up with a verdict.

When the outcome of the hypothesis is skewed then the results can be unfavorable. If a jury convicts an innocent person, then they must also take into consideration the probability of the person actually committing the crime. By taking into consideration the significance level of the evidence, one would have to accept or reject the hypothesis based on evidence. There may be times when a lawyer might be biased toward the criminal and sway the evidence. In this case, the jury, which is made up of random people, would have to decide if there is enough to convict the criminal with absolute certainty. While a jury may not be actually performing the hypothesis testing, in theory, which is what they are doing when deciding if someone is guilty

When accused of wrongdoing or of a specific crime, American citizens are afforded certain rights thanks to the system of democracy in the United States. A trial by jury with jury members made of one's peers is the right that plays the overwhelmingly salient role in the movie "12 Angry Men." This paper delves into the jury's role in the movie along with the role of a jury in the American justice system. The thesis: a) the American system of justice has come a long way since the 1950s, when judges did not necessarily explain to juries that the accused cannot be convicted unless there proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he or she is guilty; and b) there are legitimate questions raised as to what "reasonable doubt" really means.

“This is a court of law, not a court of justice” - Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., a late 1800s American jurist. The words of Holmes bring doubt to courtrooms and prove that the law is not always a tool of justice. When it comes to trial, some decisions are made unfairly in all sorts of cases. In the United States, two trial systems are used in court depending on the nature of the case, either the jury trial system or the bench trial system. Many people prefer one over the other, but no one can really determine which one is best since every individual has his own definition of “fair trial.” Even though court trial can guarantee individuals a purely legalistic trial, most people would agree that the jury trial is fairer.