The current jury system in America is unfortunately corrupt because of unprofessional jurors that are the deciding factor for cases. The “jury of our peers” system does not promote fair justice and it should be replaced with a new system of professional jurors. The current system allows random, unqualified individuals to make irresponsible decisions for our government. If unqualified jurors were replaced with professional jurors, our system would become successful. A professional system of jurors is an efficient way for justice to be decided because the current system allows jurors to be uneducated on law, inconsistent with experience, and bias based on their opinions.
A “jury of peers” is unreliable because the current system allows jurors to be uneducated in law. Consequently, when jurors do not have the proper training or information available to them, they could make rash and unqualified decisions. This is seen in the movie, “12 Angry Men” when Juror seven does not even show interest in the case because he has his mind on baseball. As a result of this, Juror eleven expresses, “What kind of man are you? You have sat here and voted guilty with everyone else because there are some baseball tickets burning a hole in your pocket.” In the film, Juror seven is only on the jury because he is obligated to be there, not because he feels like he has a responsible duty to his government. This example is a perfect display of why the whole idea of normal citizens making jury decisions is unreliable. A lot of the time in society, jury duty is looked down upon as a waste of time to normal citizens. Some jurors, like juror seven in “12 Angry Men”, just want jury duty to be over with, and do not even care about justice. Which is why professional jurors would be a much better choice for our legal system because they would understand the law and make decisions based on justice. Reasonable doubt on untrained and unqualified jurors is obvious because most jurors rely on their personal opinions in cases instead of honest facts. Consequently, an uneducated jury might cause a verdict to become unjust and ingenuine.
Jurors in our current system have inconsistencies because they either have little experience or are easily
"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.
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 the movie 12 Angry Men, the jurors are set in a hot jury room while they are trying to determine the verdict of a young man who is accused of committing a murder. The jurors all explain why they think the accused is guilty or not guilty. Throughout the movie they are debating back and forth and the reader begins to realize that even though the jurors should try to not let bias cloud their judgement, the majority of the jurors are blinded by bias. The viewer can also see that the jurors have their own distinguishable personalities. Their personalities intertwine with each other to demonstrate how the jury system is flawed, but that is what makes it work.
The current jury system is based on an almost millennium-old principle found in the Magna Carta (1215). As a result of changes in society since, the system must be seen as potentially outdated. In other words, it may not satisfy the needs of modern society, judged by what the major stakeholders of the criminal justice system expect. Indeed, there are substantial flaws in current jury systems in terms of effectiveness. The two major concerns with jury systems are their representativeness and their levels of competence. The representativeness of juries is essential as their reason for existing is to represent the views of society. Having twelve jurors could be understood to ensure representativeness and eliminate room for bias. However, this does not remove the possibility of juries being biased towards parties. Even if the potential jurors contacted are representative in terms of gender, ethnicity, age and socioeconomic status and though jury duty is a compulsory engagement, 90% of Queenslanders opt out of it. This makes it very likely that juries will not be representative. One example is ethnic diversity. There is likely to be less ethnic diversity in courts because ethnic minorities might not have sufficient language ability or access to interpreters to be jurors. Another example is age. It is likely that retired people
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 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.
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
This process not only ensures due process, but it also provides the best means of ensuring an impartial jury. The process provides lawyers the opportunity to review possible jurors and gives them the opportunity to have a say in the selection process. Any jurors that the lawyers feel can be detrimental to the case, can be removed from the jury selection process.
There are certain aspects of the United States’ government that seem to be at the core of ensuring democracy for all citizens. These ideas include representative leaders like the President, or the bicameral legislature. Similarly, the jury system is another structure of the government that many people hold close to their hearts. Although it seems like the ultimate way that the citizens can self-govern, is the jury system really the best way to reach a verdict in civil and/or criminal cases? The bottom line is that the jury system is an outdated structure. Specifically, bench trials, or trials decided only by a judge, are much more effective than jury trials because judges are more educated, less susceptible to popular influence, and are not
The selection process of juries was designed to select citizens that were equal peers of the person involved in the trial. However, many disparities exist and the selection process at times seems to be disproportionate relating to race or ethnicity. Reform of the legislature would benefit those that are not being properly served.
It is recognised that Australia’s System of decision making in the court is in need of reform, if the
R v Young (1995) where the Court of Appeal ordered a retrial of a man
Some Jurors will reach a quick verdict or not properly think over the evidence just to get it over and done with so they can go home.
As these lists have grown the number of cases that are tried by a jury