Relinquished Jury Trial

"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.

Did you know that the jury system’s principles originate all the way back into medieval England? Between 1154 and 1189, King Henry II put the jury system principles into effect. King Henry II allowed twelve “free and lawful men” to make decisions regarding land and inheritance disputes (“The History of Trial By Jury”). America used these ideas to create modern juries. I believe that the Founding Fathers gave juries too much freedom to make decisions in the courts because citizens hold biased power, citizens can be uneducated in the law, and citizens can be easily influenced by social media and other outside voices; therefore, changes should be made to the jury system.

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

In conclusion we should keep the jury system just find a better way to question potential jurors. Citizens should have the right to serve in jury duty and decide whether a fellow citizen is guilty or innocent. This will give the citizens and their family a peace knowing that a criminal was proven guilty. Since the jury system has been intact for so long they should just make some minor changes. These minor changes would not only help the citizens but the community as

We should not have a professional jury system because it simply doesn't work for our government system. If we were to have a professional jury system, jurors would be biased, lazy and experiences with past cases would interfere. Although there would be different jurors with different histories on a panel, Jurors would be biased because they would all have the same education telling them what is right and wrong. The same textbook would be deciding whether a person is guilty, or not guilty. Another circumstance where a juror would be biased is race. If a white male were to be convicting and black male, it could easily fly under the radar that the white male juror is holding a grudge. Many black males and minorities would be discriminated against

Juries specifically in the United States serve a very large political significance. Majority of the time they determine the fate of those on trial. Juries are used to protect the rights of the people and work hand in hand with the judge to determine the outcome of cases to the best of their ability. Working hand in hand means the Judge determines what laws are applied to each specific case, while the jury works to decide on the facts. Jurors are held to a high degree due to the fact they must focus on fact, remain impartial, and be honest. Very much power is given to juries in the court of law which in turn shows that large political significance juries hold. While juries hold a large significance politically, one of arguably their strongest weapons is the use of jury nullification. Jury nullification refers to right of juries to nullify, or refuse to apply law in criminal cases despite facts that support a finding that the law was violated. It is an extremely powerful component of law because a defendant could have all the facts and evidence pointing to their guilt, but if the jury feels a certain way about a law or situation, then they have the right to pass on all the facts presented and acquit a defendant that in most cases would be found guilty. Also they could use if they found a specific law being applied to the defendant as an unjust law or the way a law is applied. But largely in the past, specifically during the Jim Crow era, it was used as a way to acquit those

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 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.

There are two very strong opinions towards jurors here in the United States. The first group have the people who believe that jury nullification is vital to our legal system to allow the average American to have their voice heard through the legal system, like Americans did with Prohibition. I would call this side the John Adams side of the debate, putting faith within our legal system and citizens. Adams once said that jurors are obligated to vote grounded on their “own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” This is a country for the people and by the people and for that to be true, jury nullification is needed especially when America has a history of using courtrooms as a social issue playground. Many people would find this side favorable because it aligns with many different moral theories.

In the U.S. our system is formulated by various means to construct tweleve fair and unbiased jurors. Whom acording to our text, hypothetically decide cases based on “burden of proof and reasonable doubt.” These individuals listen and take into account the evidence and testimoneys of witnesses appointed by both the prosecution and defense through the duration of the trial. Though many make a preliminary decision based on the opening statements. Once trial has commenced the jury is dissmissed to the deliberation room. Where disscussion about the elements of the case and the defendents specific actions begin, but jurors usually vote as soon as they retire to jury room and the orginal vote wins the majority of the time. Allowing their own

Juries are one of the most important facets of the democratic process, so preserving them would guarantee the continued existence of democracy in America. Additionally, preserving the jury system would help ensure an adherence to traditional American legal values and principles (Law Teacher, 2016). Preserving the jury system would also ensure that every citizen maintains their right to bring large corporations to justice and to fight for themselves (Faxon Law Group, 2016). Moreover, having a jury leads to a more fair trial, because the opinion of the jury is much less likely to be biased than that of a single judge (Sacks, 1965). One of the most important issues facing this generation is how to preserve the civil jury system for the ones to come.

Is the Jury System being Fair to the people? In the 5th century, around the Ancient Greece the jury system has been around at that time, but it might have emerged in New England during the 12th century. The Jury system or trial is a lawful proceeding in which a jury makes a decision on finding the details of the crime, which then direct the action of a judge would decide on. After the finding of facts the judge or panel of judges makes the decision on if the defiant is guilty or not.

Juries date back to 1066 and some speculate even before then. Since then, it has varied between 6 or 12 jury members and this is isn’t because of any serious flaws, it is just how it went(Hans and Vidmar.) Juries are used to be the deciding factor in many different types of cases; murder, thievery, abuse, or stealing. Juries are backed by many articles in the Constitution; such as Article III Section 2, The Sixth Amendment, and the Seventh Amendment. Article III Section Two states that “The trial of all crimes shall be by jury and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes have been committed.” The Sixth Amendment guarantees and quick and speedy trial with an unbiased jury. Finally, the Seventh Amendment states that with any crime above

Serve on a jury when called upon – U.S. citizens, serving on a jury is an important service to the community and court system (USCIS, 2014). It also gives the person accused the right to a speedy and fair trial of an impartial jury. The service allows the opportunity to participate in a vital task of achieving fair results in the matters of the court and the accused. Individuals of a jury have different opinions and it allows everyone to understand and see the beliefs and opinions of others in a group.

Juries provide a public opinion which helps show what the public would think about the case and weather the accused is guilty or not guilty.