Essay about The Jury Selection Procedure in the English Legal System

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 United States, we let the people decide – not who the president will be, though. We let everyday people decide whether or not someone is guilty of a crime. The jury system has been around for ages (dating back hundreds of years in England) and probably will be for a long time. But is the system still working? Is it worth it? Should we continue to use juries to decide cases? The jury system shouldn’t remain an option because jurors tend to be incompetent, it’s not really worth the effort, and jurors aren’t professionally educated to decide on these cases.

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.”

Although many states have investigated the effects of disqualify people with disabilities from jury service and made recommendations for law reforms in the area, apart from Western Australia, no state has taken active measures to implement the recommendations proposed. In Western Australia, people with disabilities are no longer automatically disqualified from jury service. The Western Australian courts have shown their willingness to allow people with disabilities to participate as juror by the recent case of Drisana Levitzke-Gray which captured the attention of many media outlets. The courts allowed Ms Levitzke-Gray, with the assistance of an Auslan interpreter to participate in the jury selection process. Although Ms Levitzke-Gray was not ultimately empanelled as part of the final jury, her experience is the first of its kind in Australia and has shown the courts willingness to provide accommodations to people who are capable for performing their democratic duties.

Since the series revolves around real life events that occurred, it is quite accurate how the criminal justice is represented. In the series, we see everything that we would see in the criminal justice field, for instance the courtroom actors such as the judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, bailiffs, courtroom clerk, and jury. Everyone in the O.J. Simpson was important and they all received more attention than they should have, but the ones who got the most attention and had the biggest role in this case was the jury. Jury selection is selected from the eligible population over the age of 18 who has complied from the DMV. There is a voir dire that process by which jury members are selected, attorneys and judge seek to gain information about

A trial can be deemed unfair if the jury is swayed by emotions. Strong emotions such as prejudice, disgust, confusion, vengeance and stubbornness can affect the outcome of a case. If emotions change the outcome rather than actual evidence presented to the jury, the trial will be unfair to the defendant.

Within the court proceedings, the first reality video explains the process of jury selection, or what they would call jury “rejection.” They think of it as rejection because they are not really picking the juries they are rejecting the ones they do not need. What I knew before watching this film is that juries are a set of citizens chosen to appear in court to hear and help come to a verdict about a trial. Somethig new that I learned was that jurors must fill out a questionaire so that the attorney are easily able to pick who they would want on the panel.

The jury system is an old institution, predating England’s Magna Carta. Its essence in providing checks and balances, and allowing fair trial by peers is virtuous. Granting juries the power and discretion we do, expresses our trust in an institution that is fundamental to our vision of democratic governance, and our confidence that jury verdicts can be impartial, and accurate. The vital role in which the jury plays in

As the young generation of this country, it is our responsibility to take care of it as are predecessors have. In order to do that we must keep up on current events and have a clear understanding of the way our country, our community, and our world operate. This includes staying up to date with events in our country, such as presidential elections and natural disasters. I get many questions as to why I follow this year’s presidential election, because I don’t vote. It is because I care about our country and I feel it is my responsibility as a citizen to know what my country is going through.

Thoughtout the trial of the jury, I’ve saw all three characters stand against their case and try to defend their case. Even though, the character and defense attorney give great evidence against the reason on committing sin. The prosecutors did a well job of giving opposing side of the defendant. This caused me to wonder which out the the three characters committed the greatest sin.

Jury instructions are given by the judge to the jury. They are to inform them of the law to be applied in the case. It includes an explanation of the burden of proof, the specific cause of action and its individual must be unanimous or a majority. These are agreed to by the attorney and the judge during the pretrial activities is made in certain that no error is made in law in which the jury will be instructed. The role is to guide the flow of the trial

I believe that at some point a Democracy cannot be sustained when a relatively few amount of people are involved within the political process. The purpose of democracy was to give every single citizen of a country a voice. The “one man, one vote” slogan has been viewed by some as a reality and others as an illusion. Not all citizens agree with their views on our democracy and our government. Thus, when there is a lot of disagreement in the views and ideals of the political process, the chances of having more people not involved in politics increases.

This essay will discuss the role of the magistrate and jury in the English and Welsh legal decision-making process. It will assess both the advantages and disadvantages of both mechanisms and give an opinion on the contribution they make in the process.

The Selection and Role of a Jury in a Criminal Trial This assignment focuses on how a jury is selected and its role in a

This paper traces the development of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that has characterized the Anglo-American criminal justice system for over two hundred years. That system has always depended heavily upon the jury so that any study of reasonable doubt necessarily must be linked to an examination of the jury. From the surviving records, it does not appear that judges initially concerned themselves much with the question of the jury's evidentiary duties. Early jurors reached decisions on the basis of a mixture of their own personal knowledge of events and the testimony of others. By the sixteenth century most of the personal knowledge had fallen away. Once jurors were clearly