The Ideal 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.

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 As a result of changes in society since, the system must be seen as potentially outdated.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

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

During jury selection, potential jurors are interviewed then chosen or eliminated from the jury. The initial selection of potential jurors is completely random; citizens get “jury Duty” notices on a random basis. The screening of the jury selection is conducted by both the prosecution and the defense, and is overviewed by the judge on the case. During the interview, citizens are asked a number of strategic questions to ensure that they are not in any way bias for or against the defendant or case. The questions also eliminate those who have any connection to the case, in any way. It is during this interview that the lawyers on the case can voice their concerns regarding biased jurors.

The goal of the American Justice system is to remain unbiased. One way we can achieve unbiased justice is through the jury system. When you are selected for jury service, you must plead to only judge the case based on information presented in court. Judges also appoint jurors who have not formed or expressed opinions about the case (document f).

Those a part of the American jury system tend to base their decisions on opinions rather than actually analyzing the facts. Those on the jury may not be qualified to acquit someone. In the novel written by Mark Twain he asserts that even though people on the jury take an oath, but they

Juries exists in the criminal trial to listen to the case presented to them and, as a third, non-bias party, decide beyond reasonable doubt if the accused is guilty. For the use of a trial by juror to be effective, no bias should exists in the jurors judgments, the jurors should understand clearly their role and key legal terms, and the jury system should represent the communities standards and views whilst upholding the rights of the accused and society and remain cost and time effective.

Juries are selected from the general population; they are to be a representation of the people from that area. In trials with a jury, the first step is the selection of jurors. The jury selection process starts with something called voir dire, which is Latin for “to speak the truth”. Voir dire is where either the lawyers or the judge ask potential jurors questions about matters deemed to be significant to the trial. The judge may be asked to dismiss a juror for cause by the lawyer if incompetence or likely bias has been proven. (Baum, 2013) For example, a juror can be dismissed for cause if he or she is related to anyone involved in the case including the defendant or a lawyer, or if a company that is part of the lawsuit employs him or her. Each lawyer may request the dismissal of jurors for cause with no limit. (American Bar Association, 2016) Both sides are allowed a limited number of peremptory challenges, which are how a juror can be dismissed without having to show cause. The lawyer is to dismiss because they believe the person to be unable to serve in the best interest of the client not because of race or sex. (American Bar

Based on the United States Constitution, all citizens have the right to a “Trial by Jury,” which is a legal proceeding in which a jury makes a decision in order to direct the actions of a judge. A jury pool is randomly selected first, and then the potential jurors are notified. After, “Voir Dire,” or jury selection, occurs where twelve people are chosen for jury duty.

Louisiana is no doubt formed from a deep history and culture unlike any other state. One uniqueness is the political system based on the Napoleonic Code; however, Louisiana created a jury system only shared by one other state in the United States. In 1880, non-unanimous jury verdicts were legalized after the ending of federal occupation after the Civil War, and Bourbon Democrats took their chance to return to power in the state in order to re-establish white supremacy. By 1898, Louisiana codified non-unanimous jury verdicts into its state constitution, approving this in result of Redeemers to contain and control African Americans during the era of Jim Crow- and still controlling the African Americans today. One example of this continuation

The jury system in America proved to be successful over the last couple of centuries. This is because the citizens of America form the jury, which in return provides a system that is fair. The “jury of our peers” needs to be upheld because it is the most effective way of upholding justice in the country. When random people are chosen to take part in the jury system and decide if a person is guilty or not, it gives unbiased and right fair judgment for the defendant. A “jury of peers” is the most successful way that justice can be decided unbiasedly, with protection for the defendant, and also provide citizens with a sense of duty to their government.

To begin with, the jury system are juries that are responsible for deciding whether or not a defendant is guilty of violating the law in a specific case. They usually consist of 6-12 people and their deliberations are private. I personally believe the jury system is a unique thing to use, but there are many advantages and disadvantages. Not every country in the world has something like this. That’s why a question appears.. Is the American jury system still a good idea?

The Jury Selection Procedure in the English Legal System The theory behind modern day trial by jury can be traced back some