Jury System

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,

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

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 As a result of changes in society since, the system must be seen as potentially outdated.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

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.

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.

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

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.

The history in England and Europe was of people being sentenced to lengthy prison terms, tortured or even killed in secret trials. If you were accused in this situation, you often had no chance to defend yourself and the charges were often trumped up to eliminate political and religious dissent. By requiring a jury to be involved in a trial, serious and sometimes fatal decisions are taken out of the hands of one or a few judges, and are put into the hands of a group of average citizens who look over the evidence. This greatly reduces the possibility of corruption in the trial. For many years, all juries in America had twelve people, which is how juries were conducted during the time the Constitution was written. Eventually, though, the Supreme Court reduced the allowable size of juries in state trials down to a minimum of six. Federal trials must still have twelve jurors. The Court also removed the requirement that juries be unanimous in their decisions in state courts. Instead, 10-2 or 9-3 verdicts are now accepted. Federal court juries, however, must be unanimous.

Trials by jury provide the voice of American citizens to be heard and help fight for other American citizens. It gives power to the people to and extent. It allows for fair ways to reach a verdict no matter what the consequence. On top of the fact that America’s jury system is fair, it does have room for error. Juries can present problems with personal opinions being involved with decisions, people who are uneducated having a say, and other little things. Even though this may be true, trials by jury result in much fairer verdicts for all. The large pros of juries overtake the small cons. In the world today, people should be concerned that fellow American’s feel differently. This is because in America we do use the jury system and it has worked for years and years. Why would we change it now? If people start to feel as if it didn’t work others will believe it doesn’t and will cause problems which aren’t needed. Americans need to show and prove to each other the jury system is fair. The American jury system has proven over and over again to be a fair and efficient way to bring justice to all people in America and will continue to

As a citizen of the United States, Americans are granted a life of freedom. A small price to pay for this irreplaceable gift is that they must attend jury duty. Reginald Rose’s play, 12 Angry Men, tells of a jury assigned to the case of a teenage boy who is being accused of murdering his father, mainly focused on what occurs in the deliberation room. This trial brings out the worst of these jurors, which raises questions for the reader if America’s jury system is the most effective way to give people a fair trial. Lack of interest, inadequacy to listen to others, and various upbringings are just a select few of the reasons it’s failing.

The jury, although an integral part of the court system, has often been a controversial topic in the eyes of various officials and commentators. One of the major reasons for this is the fact that the jury not required to have any experience or qualifications in Law or the criminal justice process. A jury consists of 12 members of the pubic aged between 18-70 and on the electoral roll. The main aim of a jury is to provide a mix of people that constitutes to an

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 Selection Procedure in the English Legal System The theory behind modern day trial by jury can be traced back some

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.