Persuasive Essay On A Jury Duty

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.

During jury selection, potential jurors are interviewed then chosen or eliminated from the jury. The initial selection of potential jurors is completely random; citizens get “jury Duty” notices on a random basis. The screening of the jury selection is conducted by both the prosecution and the defense, and is overviewed by the judge on the case. During the interview, citizens are asked a number of strategic questions to ensure that they are not in any way bias for or against the defendant or case. The questions also eliminate those who have any connection to the case, in any way. It is during this interview that the lawyers on the case can voice their concerns regarding biased jurors.

The American jury system is no longer reliable. Those on the American jury system usually base their decision on opinions rather than facts. Ordinary citizens do not have the a full understanding of the law. The majority of the jury is easily influenced like the image of the convicted can influence the juror. Jury duty is mandatory not a choice, it is a person's choice that is not their own.

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 opinions of citizens differ greatly based on whether or not they believe that serving jury duty is a privilege, responsibility, burden, or even unnecessary. According to Kris, a neighbor of mine, the process of being selected as a juror is tedious, but she enjoys being a juror. She has only served in one case, but feels that as citizens it is

Some of the hardest decisions on trial are made by the jury, which means the jurors have one of the most important roles when it comes to the trial, since they have to decide on another human’s fate, either. One decision a jury makes can be the difference between going to jail for life or being liberated. When O.J. Simpson was declared “not guilty” for the homicide of his wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and his friend, Ronald Lyle Goldman, by the Lance Ito, many argued that O.J. should have been proclaimed “Guilty”. Although many claim the verdict given was ideal, strong evidences, proves O.J. Simpson to be guilty for murdering 2 of his close acquaintances.

Since the jury is a group of twelve people, it is safe to assume that they will come from different backgrounds, educational levels, religions, and ethnic groups. This does not mean that all diverse groups will be represented, but it is enough to offer diverse perspectives. This variety helps to eliminate any undue prejudice or bias that could be present in either a small group or single individual. Because these people have no association with anyone involved in the trial, they have no personal or financial reason to be biased. They will not be personally impacted by the outcome of the trials. This should result in an unbiased decision by the jury. A positive side effect of the jury system is that it affords the jurors a basic knowledge and education of the judicial system. Other than voting, it is the jury system that provides the most citizens an opportunity to be involved in government. Although we can learn about the judicial process in books, the experience of being a part of the system by participating on a jury is a more meaningful way of understanding the

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 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.

In the State of California, you are qualified to be a juror if you are a U.S. citizen, at least 18 years old, understand English, a resident of the country, have not served on a jury previously in the last 12 months, are not on a grand jury or other trial jury, are not under a conservatorship.

In criminal court cases of Australia, the Jury System is used to ensure that the trial is fair for both parties involved. The Jury is made up of twelve random Australian Citizens from all walks of life. A potential Juror must under go a selection process that consists of; being questioned if they know anything that could hinder their ability to remain unbiased and impartial. After this, they are paraded in front of the prosecutor and defender (both parties). When their name is called proceeded by their age and profession they must rise and walk to the panel, where they will sit if they remain unchallenged by both parties.

In the courtroom, the jury acts as the last chance that the defendant has to try to secure his or her freedom. Depending on their final verdict, the life of another human being is decided. Any jury, though, can only be as good as the jurors that make up the panel. This fact is very clearly illustrated in Twelve Angry Men, where a couple of bad seeds almost end up making a premature decision based on purely arbitrary reasons that would retuen to haunt them. Clearly, mixed in with those truly cared about whether or not the suspect that was accused actually got a fair trial, there were also those on the other end of the spectrum who honestly could not have cared less.

Made of only twelve ordinary citizens, the jury is to create a verdict from the trial they attend, present it, and then be able to defend their verdict (Jordan, 2002, p.1). Before these twelve jurors are selected, certain individuals are randomly selected from the voters registration list and other different sources depending on the subject of location (Jordan, 2002, p.18). After the potential jurors are given an extensive voir dire, the jurors deemed qualified to participate in the case move on to the court where they take the oath and begin the trial (Jordan, 2002, p.20). The individuals of the jury then listen closely as evidence is being brought forward by both the prosecutor and the defense attorney. The jurors then evaluate the evidence that has been brought to them alongside the law and create a verdict (Jordan, 2002, p.20). When the jurors reach their verdict, they present their findings to the court (Jordan, 2002, p.20). The only way the jury is able to reach their verdict is with the evidence presented to them by the

Source: CDC, National Center for Health Statistics, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Health, United States, 2002. Flegal et. al. JAMA. 2002;288:1723-7. NIH, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Clinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation and Treatment of Overweight and Obesity in Adults, 1998.