Law Is Not Always a Tool of Justice

The American jury system is used most commonly in court, but many question if the jury system should still be included in trials. The jury system should be kept in court trials because it will ensure justice is properly made, allow citizens to be involved in the court system, allow citizens to be heard by the government, and it reviews forgotten evidence shown in court. Some American citizens are beginning to doubt the “trial by jury” aspect of court systems, but the majority still supports this system. A jury is a group of people who decide the fate of the defendant. Juries play a large role in court systems and help decide the punishment of the accused.

The literal meaning of justice is ‘the quality of being morally right and fair’ but there are various theories which can be considered and compared since they all define justice in a different way.

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.

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

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.

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

In today’s society of law it is preferable to have a jury trial than a bench trial. For many reasons a jury trial is preferable than a bench trial because there are 12 mind's that decide if the defendant is guilty or not. The defendant only needs one juror to save their life because it would be a hung jury. The jurors need to be 12 to zero to have the defendant guilty or not guilty. It is easier to have a jury a trial than a bench trial because in a bench trial the defendant has to look like they did the crime while in a jury trial 12 jurors are hearing the testimony and they could decide from there if the defendant is guilty or not. All the jurors need is a reasonable doubt to say the defendant is not guilty while the bench trial the judge

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.

"Today, jurors sometimes leave courtrooms in tears after convicting people they believed were morally (if not legally) innocent, or after witnessing the harsh sentences handed down by judges at the sentencing phase of seemingly minor cases. That is exactly the sort of travesty trial by jury was intended to prevent. If the law were just and justly applied, jurors would have no reason to regret their verdicts, or the sentences that are meted out later by judges." (Trial by Jury Website) This would seemingly encourage the American judicial system to adapt the jury system to meet the needs of our current American society. It is unpleasant for the jurors to make very hard choices concerning the lives of other fellow citizens. It is also hard for the persons who are standing trial to know that their fate is going to rest with people with little or no knowledge of the law.

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 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.

Ever since the beginning of our country’s existence we have had this idea that every single person, despite whatever crime they had committed, were citizens regardless. Those citizens have rights, those rights included being innocent until proven guilty, and having the right to a trial by jury. We have fought to protect that last right particularly hard, however, only a very small percentage of cases these days are even seen by juries. So, is a trial by Jury really worth it? Or is it better to have a trial by a single judge? One might be led to think that a bench trial, or trial by judge, is the better option due to the extremely low volume of jury trials. However, that is not the case. Jury trials are better because they are less biased, they are more accurate, and they are fairer than bench trials.

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.

The jury system is an old institution, predating England’s Magna Carta. Its essence in providing checks and balances, and allowing fair trial by peers is virtuous. Granting juries the power and discretion we do, expresses our trust in an institution that is fundamental to our vision of democratic governance, and our confidence that jury verdicts can be impartial, and accurate. The vital role in which the jury plays in

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.