Amendment 7 One day you’re sitting on the couch eating a bagel. Then, BOOM!!! The police are knocking on your door. BANG!!! You find out that you were accused for murder and are arrested. Then one day you are released because a jury trial has proven you not guilty. You might think something like this would never happen to you, but if it did luckily we have the 7th Amendment in the Constitution which guarantees a trial by jury. This protects you from being wrongly accused and/or have one person decide your fate. The meaning and purpose of the 7th Amendment, trial by jury, makes an enduring impact in our lives
The Meaning and Purpose of the 7th Amendment Being a citizen of the U.S.A our founding fathers wanted to make sure our rights were
…show more content…
They were concerned that if trials were only decided by judges, the judges would side with the government, giving the government too much power. This happened to the colonists when judges, who were appointed by the king, would always side with the king. They felt a jury of local people would be more likely to provide a fair trial.¨ This means that they didn’t want the trials to be decided by just the judges because it would give too much power to the government. The 7th Amendment only refers to civil cases not criminal cases. In fact, according to http://www.ducksters.com/ “A trial by jury is when a number of people hear the case and decide together if the defendant is guilty. The amendment doesn't say exactly how many people need to be on a jury. The Supreme Court, however, has said that there needs to be at least six people on a jury. Most juries today in the United States have twelve members.” This means that the jury is just a bunch of random people that have heard about the case that hear what he has to say and decide if he’s guilty. And if that’s not enough according to http://www.ducksters.com/ “The amendment states that the lawsuit must be for more than twenty dollars. This was a lot more money in 1791 then it is today. Back then, it was more than a month's wages for the average worker. Today (2014), a dispute must be …show more content…
According to http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/09/17251878-man-wrongly-imprisoned-in-murder-case-wins-132-million-in-civil-rights-lawsuit “A federal jury found Friday that two Cleveland detectives fabricated or withheld evidence in the 2000 trial of David Ayers” This means that he was framed y two people during the trial in 2000. Moveover, http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/09/17251878-man-wrongly-imprisoned-in-murder-case-wins-132-million-in-civil-rights-lawsuit “The Ohio Innocence Project took up his case in 2008, Ayers got a state appeals court to order the trial judge to allow DNA testing of a single pubic hair found on Brown’s body – the results of which showed the hair did not come from Ayers.” This means that the Ohio Innocence Project confirmed that David Ayers was innocent by using DNA. “http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/09/17251878-man-wrongly-imprisoned-in-murder-case-wins-132-million-in-civil-rights-lawsuit” “One detective settled with Ayers out of court. But in the civil rights trial, the Plain Dealer reported, Ayers’ lawyers said two other detectives, Denise Kovach and Michael Cipo, had tried to frame Ayers because he was gay” This means for some reason Denise Kovach and Michael Cipo framed David Ayers just because he was gay. You might think wow the city of Hammond had to pay a lot of money towards the
An early version of the Seventh Amendment was introduced in Congress in 1789 by James Madison, along with the other amendments, in response to Anti-Federalist objections to the new Constitution. Our founders believed a trial by a jury was important. This idea came about based on their life experience with the King of England. A major grievance annotated in the Declaration of Independence was that the King would not permit trial by jury in the colonies. This was due to the colonists often rejecting English law. This rejection is also known as jury nullification; where the jury finds the law to be improper and decides not to punish the person in court.
This amendment was introduced after the Bruce Burrell case (2005) where, after two weeks of deliberations, all jurors were firmly in favor of one verdict except for one who was firmly against the majority verdict. The case illustrated the vulnerabilities of the previous jury system in creating a time and cost ineffective measure of trialing defendants where justice was not necessarily achieved. Another recent reform is the passing of legislation in 2006 which provided three additional ‘spare’ jurors to be empanelled on lengthy criminal trials for example in the case R v. Wood. These recent reforms in legislation have led to the jury system being more cost and time effective in the criminal trial. Allowing a majority vote instead of strict unanimous verdict reduces the risk of a hung jury and hence prevents jury bribing and jury disagreements. By avoiding a retrial, the criminal trial process saves huge amounts of time and money for all individuals involved and hence maintains the integrity of the jury system. Equally, allowing spare jurors in lengthy trials is hugely cost and time effective as retrials are often avoided in the case where there is misconduct amongst the jurors.
The Sixth Amendment provides that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a(n) speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.
America is built on the foundation of society being run and well-flowing around the three values the Republic of the United States hold most dear to: equality, freedom, and justice. The rights of the accused is an important factor in maximizing justice. Amendments 4-8 in the Bill of Rights specifically detail how criminal law should be dealt with, and how justice can be ensured every step of the way. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments contain two systems that go hand in hand with one another, a due process and a trial by jury for all citizens. Amendments 4-8, a Due Process, and a Trial by Jury are essential for establishing the rights of the accused and their absence would be detrimental to the effectiveness of the American criminal justice system.
Ratified in 1791, the seventh amendment protects the right to trial by jury in civil cases and for most of its history it has fulfilled its intention in this role. Unlike many other amendments, the seventh is not one that has not often been directly challenged. From its inception it has remained largely unchanged except for small practical adjustments. The seventh is not considered as essential to the protection of liberties and freedoms and this is reflected by it not being subordinated to the states.
Americans having rights is a very important part in what it means to be an American . Americans have rights in order to protect themselves from the government
In an ordered society, justice is necessary for everyone must be treated fairly. Regardless of a bad action or crime a person commits, they must receive a fair trial. Within the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution, the sixth amendment states that one has a right to a speedy, public, and impartial trial by jury. Within The Eumenides, Athene is the voice
One of the statements was about discrimination. It made me think about how oftentimes workers can sue their employers for discrimination and harassment issues, and that would be a civil case where the Seventh Amendment steps in. With a judge, the decision could be extremely biased, and the charged person might not even be said guilty. However, with the jury, a group built from peers, the decision could be much more organized and fair, as evidence would be taken into account and decisions would not be made solely based on one judge’s opinion. Even though the jury could also have strong political beliefs, it is more common for there to be a variety of beliefs that would not make the final decision be based on a wrong interpretation of the law. I saw students who stepped forward during Challenge Day and admitted to family members being discriminated against in the workplace, and I just hoped that at least one of these families was helped by trial by jury, an ensured right by the Seventh Amendment.
They had been in love with the thought of liberty and believed foreseen rights for man would be good for man’s nature. Knowingly experiencing tyranny from the grand countries, the Fathers constructed the Constitution very carefully in order to avoid tyranny and a government for the people, by the people, and of the people would be developed. The First Amendment was created to ensure that the government would not and could not interfere with American citizens basic civil rights. Being that this Amendment was so important, many states refused to approve such documents as the Constitution until there were amendments that would protect people’s rights in the future. The Founding Fathers made the constitution to where eventually even in today’s days it would protect the rights of American citizens. There is always leeway with in the amendments to where not only does it protect the people of the past, but it protects the
A bench trial, the judge only hears the facts, evidence, and if the defendant looks like they did it. One juror could save a defendant's life because in 12 Angry Men it stated, “There were eleven votes for guilty. It’s not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.” Juror number eight has a point in a jury trial. It is not easy to vote for guilty. He had a reasonable doubt to vote not guilty. “I don’t know” it stated in 12 Angry Men. Juror number 8 just wanted to talk about the situation. This is a reason why a jury trial is more preferable a judge wouldn’t hesitate and give the defendant life in imprisonment. With all the evidence given a judge would have had a final verdict by now. One man stood up and helped the defendant to find him not guilty. This could happen anywhere in a jury trial. If anything jurors could change their vote to not guilty to guilty or the other way around. In a jury trial the jurors could change their vote. “ FOREMAN. I vote guilty. Number two?TWO. Not guilty. FOREMAN. Number Three?THREE. Guilty. FOREMAN. Number Four?FOUR. Guilty.FOREMAN. Number Five? FIVE. Not guilty. FOREMAN. Number Six? SIX. Not guilty. FOREMAN. Number Seven? SEVEN. Guilty.FOREMAN. Number Eight?EIGHT. Not guilty.FOREMAN. Number Nine?NINE. Not guilty. FOREMAN. Number Ten?TEN. Guilty .FOREMAN. Number Eleven? ELEVEN. Not guilty. FOREMAN. Number Twelve? TWELVE. Guilty. FOUR. Six to six.” They all voted not guilty it was all tied up.
“We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution for the United States of America.” Without the right that the Constitution brings us, we wouldn’t have rights therefore the United States wouldn’t be a good place to live in. The Constitution brings us the right of freedom of speech (first amendment) , the right to bear arms (second amendment), and the right to protect against unreasonable government actions such as search and seizure of person property (fourth amendment). Being an American citizen means that you have rights that they would like you to fulfil. As an American citizen is it voluntary to vote, but others are required such as obeying the law and paying taxes. The Magna Carta, John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, and the Petition of Rights explains the rights and the responsibilities of an American citizen.
the right to a jury trial. This allows a minimum of six Americans, chosen from
Amendment VI gives people the right to a quick and public trial in front of an impartial jury. This assures a fair trial. Trying to defend in a case where the jury comes into the courthouse with the preconceived notion that the defendant is already is nearly impossible and
A jury trial is made up of twelve citizens of the community who have been randomly selected to serve on the jury. The jury had been given the authority to judge the facts of the case, and them apply the law that was given by the judge to those facts, and render a verdict of guilty or not guilty.
This is with respect to criminal cases triable in the Supreme Court. This was discussed in The COP v Davis (1993). The case concerned an attempt to try and punish drug-related offences through the magistrates' courts, but using penalties similar to those found in the Supreme Court. The court found that this was an unconstitutional attempt to oust trial by jury. Trial by jury is also constitutionally protected in the USA.