The American Jury System

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.

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

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

The film “12 Angry Men” gives the audience insight as to how jury deliberations work. The film follows 12 jurors throughout the process of finding the defendant’s sentencing. The jury is overseeing a case surrounding a young boy who is charged with the murder of his father. It was interesting to see the process of this paired with the way each character’s vote had an effect on each of the other juror’s decisions. The film “12 Angry Men” portrays a realistic fluctuation of stances in a room of jurors as a whole and individually based upon the prior experiences and ethics of each juror.

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

I do not believe that the way the jury is selected and the way it operates is the correct way to do it. I believe this due to the fact that not much is known about the people who are selected and that they have no experience in Law. This means that they might not understand the case and they could even be a bit biased.

Also it promotes civic virtue and an opportunity for democratic selfgovernment. Document C Analysis • 4. By serving on a jury • 5. This document argues strongly for the civic and democratic values of juries and jury service. The jury system benefits those who serve, those whose cases appear before it, and democracy itself.

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

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

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.

Let me start by saying that I feel the proliferation of media and devices, particularly social media, make ALL information available to EVERY person across the globe 24/7. This being said, the availability of an uninformed jury pool is virtually impossible. In today’s society, everyone has information, therefore to assume that any perspective juror is unaware of at least the basics of every meaningful crime in their local, state and national scene is naïve at best. The best a defendant and defense attorney can hope for is that the jurors will put aside any preconceived notions of the guilt or innocence of the accused, follow the jury instructions, and render an unbiased verdict. Do I feel that this happens…NO. Jurors lie, attorneys and judges

The Bill of Rights, of the United States Constitution, assures that American citizens have a “right to a speedy public trial by jury” and does not stipulate whether or not the jury consists of laymen (nonprofessionals) or professionals (Bill of Rights, 2017). Instead, a jury simply means that a group of men and women sit in court, listen to presented evidence and determine if the court has established its proof beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal cases or the balance of probability for civil cases (Jury, 2017). The decision of the juror’s results in whether or not the defendant committed the offense he or she was charged with. Jury service remains the only governmental function in which the American citizen takes a direct part (Clark, 1966).

After a long day of work, most people like to go home and relax on the couch, perhaps scarf down some snacks, and turn on the television. Often times, while someone is haphazardly perusing through the channels, he or she might stumble upon a crime drama. Shows such as Criminal Minds, Blue Bloods, and Blindspot, bring out the inner detective in everyone and suddenly the law seems fascinating enough to keep watching. Eventually, the day comes that every active member of our democracy, meaning everyone that votes, must sit through jury duty. However, because of today’s popular media people may seem slightly excited to go. As the jury files into the courtroom, and the trial starts, the jurors realize something… jury duty is nothing like they show on Law and