The American Criminal Justice System

I agree with the speaker that the criminal justice system in America treats you better if you’re rich and guilty than if you’re poor and innocent. I believe that in not only in American society but also around world, wealth has a major roll in the outcome of a situation. Money does what money does best, it buys. Unfortunately, money can buy you your freedom and a judge. With money people look up to you, but without money people look down on you.

Courts are established social, political, and judicial institutions necessary for the manifestation of justice and the maintenance of law and order. The courts are part of the judicial branch of government, as outlined in Article III of the United States Constitution. Courts are the arenas in which the law is tried and applied. Judges are the presiding officers of the court. The United States Supreme Court is the most fundamental court because has "the authority to decide the constitutionality of federal laws and resolve other disputes over them," (United States Courts, 2012). This is true even though even though the court does not expressly enforce that law; enforcement is the province of the executive branch.

Racial disparity in the sentencing process of the criminal justice system also exists because of racial jurors. To eliminate the suspensions of racial disparity of racial jurors the jury will select at least one African-American to serve for the jury. A percentage of African-Americans oppose capital punishment (Tabak, 1999, p. 6). Prosecutors commonly discriminate against African-Americans during challenges of discretions and blatantly abuse the powers of prosecutors. Juries predominantly use more Whites in every trial is inappropriate on the levels of the criminal justice system. Americans have rights to a trial by jury of peers and has the right not to exclude minorities in the selection of a jury. Excluding minorities in a jury of an individual’s peers is a violation of an objective and fair trial for a defendant.

When thinking of a jury, there is a belief that everyone is fair when it comes to making the decision of whether the person being accused of the crime is guilty or not guilty because of the person’s race. What if this belief is not necessarily correct? There have been many instances in whether race has been a factor when the jury makes a decision. According to Baskin, Goldstein, and Sommers (2014), there has been enough evidence to show that racial biases influences the decisions of a jury. In this paper, the articles will show how jury decision-making is influenced by the offender’s race.

In this paper I will provide an analysis of a jury trial; my analysis will focus on the right of the defendant. I will articulate how a defendant 's rights at trial can be assured when it comes to The defendant’s right to a speedy trial, the defendant’s right to an impartial judge and the defendant’s right to an impartial jury.

Despite the efforts of lawyers and judges to eliminate racial discrimination in the courts, does racial bias play a part in today’s jury selection? Positive steps have been taken in past court cases to ensure fair and unbiased juries. Unfortunately, a popular strategy among lawyers is to incorporate racial bias without directing attention to their actions. They are taught to look for the unseen and to notice the unnoticed. The Supreme Court in its precedent setting decision on the case of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), is the first step to limiting racial discrimination in the court room. The process of selecting jurors begins with prospective jurors being brought into the courtroom, then

Jury Nullification is the process that allows members of the juror to acquit a defendant for crimes they do not feel is grounds for punishment. Although, many jurors may not know this is an option to many cases, it is still an option. If citizens use this option in many of the courtroom proceedings, there will be fewer people who are serving time in prison. On the other hand, this does interfere with the decision- making process. This paper will explain whether ethnicity influences courtroom proceedings and judicial practices. It will summarize the arguments for and against ethnicity-based jury nullification. Including contemporary examples of

Trial by jury can be traced back to the 12th Century and has been an integral part of the criminal justice system since Henry II favoured it over trial by ordeal (Davies, Croall and Tyrer 2010, p.311). Although they are used in both crown court trials and civil cases, the introduction of the Administration of Justice Act 1933 has reduced the use of juries in civil cases significantly (Joyce 2013, p.208). However, they are only used in about one third of cases in the Crown Court (Huxley-Binns and Martin, p.220). Since the 19th Century, the statutory provisions for jury service have been amended and revised considerably resulting in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Throughout this essay I will be firstly discussing who is eligible to sit on a

Race is one of the most controversial topics when speaking of bias, and still to this day race is occasionally believed to sway the judicial system’s decisions. A recent statistic proved that less than 5 years ago in North Carolina more than 52% of potential black jurors were cut, or peremptory challenged, meaning they removed from a case without reason (S.M.). Not only do jurors experience discrimination but suspects on trial have also suffered for decades. Evidence shows judges sentence black convicts to 20%

In what ways is the indigenous justice paradigm in conflict with the principles of the traditional, adversarial American criminal justice system? In what ways do the principles of Native American justice complement more mainstream correctional initiatives?

Diversity brings strength and resilience in the face of ever-changing conditions. In today's world, it is more important than ever. The impression is not only to have noticeable diversity in people, but as well to derive as close to a cross-section of all social and economic levels as can be had, whose social views do not show too heavy extremes which could favor either the Defense or the Prosecution. If a prospective juror harbors an opinion which favors one side over the other, attorneys look for this, in not only words said, but in body language, so as not to lose their case. The attorneys have as much, if not more, interest in winning for their own professional sake as for freeing or convicting the defendant. However, there cannot be found

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

Kalven, H., Zeisel, H., Callahan, T., & Ennis, P. (2003). The american jury(Vol. 71). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees every defendant a right to counsel and to a fair trial. That right is often rationed. Those with financial resources receive the best justice money can buy, while the poor are left with a little justice system valuing expediency over quality, resulting in the majority of cases ending in plea bargains (Love, 2017).

The jury system in the United States of America plays an important role in our society. The jury system that we have seeks to benefit the public, it also seeks to give anyone accused of a crime the right to be judged by a group of their peers. To many Americans, the right to a trial by jury is seen as a glimmer of freedom and one which all citizens should continue to enjoy. This is backed by our Constitution and by each State’s Constitution and their Amendments, which “guarantees them the right to a trial by a jury of their peers.”(Jones, n.d.) . Consistently though, the jury system falls under attacks from critics who do not agree that this is the best option and seek to abolish, or at least limit that right.