Pros And Cons Of The Jury System

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 considering the effectiveness of the jury system, it is first necessary to understand the roles of juries. Primarily, a jury is a body of legally unqualified citizens who agree on a verdict based on evidence

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.

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 heart of the American Judicial System is the determination of the innocence or guilt of the accused. At the beginning of the play, the jurors all feel that the man is guilty for murdering his father and they all wanted to convict him without carrying out a detailed discussion. The persistence of juror eight, however, plays a significant role in ensuring that the correct and fair verdict is delivered. The judicial system maintains that the defendant does not have an obligation to prove his innocence. The fact is not clear to everyone as Juror 8 reminds Juror 2 about it. The fact is a key element of the judicial system and assists in the process of coming up with a verdict. The defendant is usually innocent until proven guilty. Another element of the judicial system that comes out in the play is for a verdict to stand it must be unanimous. Unanimity ensures that the

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

Not because of fact but because of past experiences and other issues. That is why today in our legal system the jurors are now questioned to ensure they aren’t racist or hold a personal bias against anyone. During certain points in the arguments of the jurors it is obvious through what they say that peer pressure plays a small part in deciding whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. When the first vote was cast and only one juror voted not guilty he was under intense and hostile scrutiny. The entire group cannot see why he voted not guilty and they simply say, “tell us what you’re thinking and we’ll tell you where you’re all mixed up.” The way I see it they are implying that the defendant is definitely guilty and the juror who voted not guilty is just simply confused. Some of the jurors even vote guilty because they don’t want to be the one who keeps the other jurors from being able to leave. The system of voir dire has its advantages and disadvantages. Some lawyers use it to their advantage and hire jury consultants, who try and come up with the best jury for their case, they look for things such as race, gender, and past experiences to help them determine the person’s biases. That is the lawyer’s advantage and our disadvantage. That is exactly the opposite of what a jury is supposed to be made up of. However sometimes voir dire helps to rid the jury of the racist people and helps to make it a fair trial. I believe the best way to achieve

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 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

Pope Innocent III “ forbade priestly involvement in ordeals—thus taking away their holy sanction [and] in 1215, a jury system was loosely in place in Norman England. In this system, the king’s court chose twelve persons to testify as to what they knew about the facts of a case or the character of the parties involved” (The American Trial Jury). Since its establishment in 1215, problems have arisen regarding the jury system across the world. Foremost, the rise of technology engendered unjust trials and biased jurors in the 1950s, during the Sam Sheppard case. The news media released the names and telephone numbers of the jurors involved in the case and they encouraged local citizens to call the, to voice their opinions during a trial, and therefore the jury was not isolated from media outlets (The American Trial Jury). Race also generates dilemmas with the jury system, like in the case of Keith Tharpe. Woefully, he was on trial for murder and convicted solely because of a racist juror who referred to him as a derogatory name for blacks (A Black Man Convicted By a Racist Juror is About To Be Executed). Likewise, the jury system is flawed due to a rise in juror misconduct. In the year 2009, during the court case United States v. Bristol-Martir, a juror conducted illicit research on the case and was subsequently disqualified as a result of her immoral actions (Saltzburg, Dealing With Juror

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

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.

Major arguments in favour of the jury system are that it is a fundamental right and a safeguard against political and judicial corruption. The jury system has been in existence for many centuries and is generally accepted by the community. However, some believe that the jury is unable to deal with the complex issues of some of the trials today. Others believe that the Jury is still an important cornerstone of our legal system. As a general rule, the jury accepts its responsibility with great dedication to what has to be achieved by the trial. They are often referred to as the ‘lamp of freedom.’ They consist of ordinary women and men and are therefore not prejudiced by past experiences with the operation of the legal system. They are also not bound by the rules of precedent. They provide a fresh view of how the law should be applied to a set of circumstances. They are independent of political pressures and reflect the common sense values of the community. They are, in essence, a cross-section of the community. An accused person can therefore feel confident that they are not being oppressed by authority but are being tried by people themselves from within society. A jury is able to assess the situation before it, not in legalistic terms, but according to the current standards of the community. An example of this is the Clare Margaret McDonald case, by which she was found not guilty of killing her abusive husband. The verdict followed jurors asking questions in court about the legal concepts of self-defence and ‘beyond reasonable

I strongly agree with the jury of peers of the defendant and a requirement of a three-fourths majority because most of criminal trials have critical impact toward defendant’s life. It would ruin their reputation more or less since they have been accused. Furthermore, its punishment would take away their fundamental right which is freedom and it is hard to compensate when .a person that is not guilty is taken to jail. Therefore, it is better to have more people with fresh eyes to brainstorm rather than a single judge who may prejudges by