Throughout history no man nor congress created what would be known today as the Jury System. This system began as an open book for many to occupy, but no one really knew where they stood, until recently, now that it has evolved to the modern conditions presented in the country. The first sign of the jury system being used amongst the criminal justice system was when Democracy was first created. Melvyn Zerman, a publisher sales executive wrote a book Beyond a Reasonable Doubt where he examines the jury system in depth and gives a history overview where it all began. For this, Zerman began with the first encounter in history with a jury system. Around 4th century B.C., Athenians in Ancient Greece viewed their world as “a nation of lawyers and a nation without lawyers” (p. 15). The meaning “a nation of lawyers and a nation without lawyers” expands to a great matter that when the plaintiff and the defendant had an altercation they did not settle this through fighting. Better yet, they handled it in the most civilized way and that’s going to the court justices where each one had to become their own lawyer.
Once charges were placed between the plaintiff and the defendant the jurors were brought into place. Now each case presented isn’t always the same. Depending on the case Athenians placed a certain amount of jurors on the tribunals or trials. Sometimes it would start at the minimum which was 201 and maybe expanded up to 1,001 jurors. Imagine today in the United States the max
A jury is a person who is un-qualified and not paid who is selected at random to participate in the court hearing. To be
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 As a result of changes in society since, the system must be seen as potentially outdated.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
Every day people are convicted of crimes or arrested for other reasons. Once they are convicted they are summoned to court, this begins the jury process. Citizens are randomly chosen to serve on jury duty. The citizens on the jury will use the jury system to determine if the person being accused is guilty or innocent. Trials can become very long or they can be short it just depends on the topic and how long it takes to decide on what the consequences will be. The jury system is the main trial and the main decision of whether or not someone is right or wrong.
Juries in NSW The jury system plays a very important part in the running of the courts. The jury system is needed in both criminal and civil cases. There are advantages of the jury system as well as disadvantages.
The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution ensures that the defendant has to the right to a jury of their peers. The standard for a jury is usually 12 but the judge can alter that anywhere from 6-12 jurors; there is also two alternatives in the case there is a breech. If a jury is only made up of six jurors, the final verdict must be based on a unanimous vote from all of the jurors.
Jury nullification is when a jury acquits a defendant who it believes is guilty of the crime he is charged (Hickey, 2010. p. 370). This is because the jury chose to ignore the facts of the case and the judge instructions, and based his or her decision on personal opinion. If we are going to allow jury nullification we may as well not take up the tax-payer’s money to even take it to trial. Nullification – The act of making a law null and void (nullifying). For example, during prohibition, many juries found defendants innocent, even when the state had proven its case, because they did not think the law should exist. State legislatures also have nullified federal laws within their borders, creating a nullification crisis for the federal
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 system gives jurors a sense of duty in their country, because they are able to perform a legal duty that allows the judicial system to work properly. To illustrate the importance of this duty the judge in, “Twelve Angry Men” expresses, “You are faced with a grave responsibility. Thank you, gentlemen.”. (Lumet, Twelve Angry Men). This quote is an example of how the system works well because of the responsibility that is given to normal citizens.
A regular court trial grand jury usually consist of 6 to 12 people, but a grand jury for the federal court can be anywhere from 16 to 23 people. The grand jury plays an important role in the criminal process, the purpose of a grand jury is to help the prosecutor decide on criminal charges or an indictment against the defendant. From my understanding the jury selection comes from people who are registered voters and people who has a driver’s license within each judicial district. There is a questionnaire process which help determine a selection which eliminates convicted felons, the list helps ensure that the jury is a broad cross section from the community in regards to sex, race, and religion. Then begin the voir dire selection process in which the attorney for the case questions the juror’s background and during this process potential jurors can be rejected if they can relate to closely to the case that they’re being called for. Once selected for the grand jury it will be a process that will take place
Justice Evatt delivered a paper to the Australian Legal Convention which entitled “The Jury System in Australia” in 1936 . Justice Evatt’s thesis of Jury trials was that “in modern day society the jury system is regarded as an essential feature of real democracy”. Jury trials in the nineteenth century were found way before in four colonies Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia . When Trial by Judge alone was first introduced in South Australian thirty eight were held in the Supreme Court between 1989 and 1993, meaning all annual percentage of all criminal trials in the court ranged between 3.9% and 8.9% . The Juries Act SA 1927 was amended many times making some major changes. In 1966, women were introduced in the South Australian Jury system as only men were capable of serving on Juries. An increase to the number of jurors available to contribute in a criminal trial was amended in 2004 . It now states in the Juries Act 1927 under section 6A that if court agrees there are good reasons to add additional jurors of 2 or 3 it can be empanelled for a criminal 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.
In the past the jury used to be made up of people who had witnessed
The jury sit in a box to one side of the judge. One member is selected as a foreman, this means he or she speaks for the jury.
The jury system is an ancient institution, dating from early Anglo-Saxon times. Jury service is compulsory, names are selected randomly from the electoral roll. In addition, the jury system consists of 12 ordinary men and women who have the responsibility to make judgement based on evidence. However, there are many advantages and disadvantages of the jury system in the supreme and county court (Victoria Law Foundation, ND, A).
A jury is a group of 12-15 people who sit in at a court case and listen to the arguments given by the prosecutor and defendant and any admissible evidence they provide, to decide their sanction based on a humane and logical decision rather than directly in the eyes of the law. When a jury is deciding on a verdict they may decide whether a party is guilty or not guilty only if it is beyond a reasonable doubt. To convict a party, the jury does not have to reach a unanimous vote, a vote of 11:1 is permitted. A vote of 10:1 or 9:1 is also permitted if the jury has been reduced Each year, the Sheriff asks the Electoral Commission to generate a list of 3000-4000 people between the ages of 18-70 each year which is randomly chosen from the electoral roll. This is a large list at first although it is greatly reduced through a number of steps and procedures.