Jury System Dbq Essay

Serving on a jury is a civic duty and an American tradition. However, some people view jury duty as a chore or as an event that negatively interrupts their lives. Some independent studies have shown that even jury duty has a devastating effect on married life. Due to this and other extraneous situations, there are only a few people who actually want to serve on a jury. This may lead to efforts by potential jurors to, in some way get out of their duty in a jury. What we know of as the current jury duty system should be changed so citizens are not forced to serve in this capacity and can still be regarded as a responsible civilian. As per the status quo, a trial jury is a constitutional right, a jury of ones peers or equals. However,

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

I do not believe that the way the jury is selected and the way it operates is the correct way to do it. I believe this due to the fact that not much is known about the people who are selected and that they have no experience in Law. This means that they might not understand the case and they could even be a bit biased.

Some could argue that this case illustrates the failure of the jury system. Despite all the evidence pointing to the guilt of the defendant,

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

We should not have a professional jury system because it simply doesn't work for our government system. If we were to have a professional jury system, jurors would be biased, lazy and experiences with past cases would interfere. Although there would be different jurors with different histories on a panel, Jurors would be biased because they would all have the same education telling them what is right and wrong. The same textbook would be deciding whether a person is guilty, or not guilty. Another circumstance where a juror would be biased is race. If a white male were to be convicting and black male, it could easily fly under the radar that the white male juror is holding a grudge. Many black males and minorities would be discriminated against

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.

Trial by jury can be traced back to the 12th Century and has been an integral part of the criminal justice system since Henry II favoured it over trial by ordeal (Davies, Croall and Tyrer 2010, p.311). Although they are used in both crown court trials and civil cases, the introduction of the Administration of Justice Act 1933 has reduced the use of juries in civil cases significantly (Joyce 2013, p.208). However, they are only used in about one third of cases in the Crown Court (Huxley-Binns and Martin, p.220). Since the 19th Century, the statutory provisions for jury service have been amended and revised considerably resulting in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Throughout this essay I will be firstly discussing who is eligible to sit on a

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 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

The jury system in America proved to be successful over the last couple of centuries. This is because the citizens of America form the jury, which in return provides a system that is fair. The “jury of our peers” needs to be upheld because it is the most effective way of upholding justice in the country. When random people are chosen to take part in the jury system and decide if a person is guilty or not, it gives unbiased and right fair judgment for the defendant. A “jury of peers” is the most successful way that justice can be decided unbiasedly, with protection for the defendant, and also provide citizens with a sense of duty to their government.

We have seen countless innocent people be plead guilty because of our jury system; and vise versa. For example, The OJ Simpson case, the Rodney King case, and many others(Pathos/Logos/Ethos). I believe that our beloved jury system is out of date, and is inferior to the modern day. (Thesis/Paradox)

However, the early jury had a much smaller role and would only decided on straight forward questions like, ‘Did Adams print that paper’. Jurors had to come to their own conclusions and were not allowed to listen to expert directly, the judge would reiterate the expert to the jury. Now, jurors can question witnesses, experts, and evidence themselves in order to find facts. So, the jury system has evolved in many ways, from who serves on a jury, to the role of the jury. In the future there will be even more changes in order to make the United States Jury System as just as

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