The Process of Choosing Jurors and Their Role Essay

Did you know that the jury system’s principles originate all the way back into medieval England? Between 1154 and 1189, King Henry II put the jury system principles into effect. King Henry II allowed twelve “free and lawful men” to make decisions regarding land and inheritance disputes (“The History of Trial By Jury”). America used these ideas to create modern juries. I believe that the Founding Fathers gave juries too much freedom to make decisions in the courts because citizens hold biased power, citizens can be uneducated in the law, and citizens can be easily influenced by social media and other outside voices; therefore, changes should be made to the jury system.

Is the Jury System being Fair to the people? In the 5th century, around the Ancient Greece the jury system has been around at that time, but it might have emerged in New England during the 12th century. The Jury system or trial is a lawful proceeding in which a jury makes a decision on finding the details of the crime, which then direct the action of a judge would decide on. After the finding of facts the judge or panel of judges makes the decision on if the defiant is guilty or not.

People are debating on if the American jury system still works in courtrooms. The jury system has its moments. Most of the time they put the bad guy in prison, but other times an innocent person get put in prison and being blamed for something they didn’t do. In the past , juries where a good way to come to a decision because the towns were smaller, and people knew each other. Today however, there are so many people living in an area it’s difficult to know every person, which can affect how the people on the jury see the defendant.

According to the Sixth Amendment, everyone has the right to a fair jury, and in order to ensure this right, careful jury selection methods are used. Attorneys and judges use a process called "voir dire" to select a jury. In this process, the potential jurors are asked a cartain set of questions to decide who would make a suitable jury. Someone's religious views, education, opinions, knowledge on the case, experience with the law, and many other components are taken into consideration when choosing a jury.There are three types of challenges that can be raised to narrow down potential jurors: challenges to the array, challenges for cause, and peremptory

Made of only twelve ordinary citizens, the jury is to create a verdict from the trial they attend, present it, and then be able to defend their verdict (Jordan, 2002, p.1). Before these twelve jurors are selected, certain individuals are randomly selected from the voters registration list and other different sources depending on the subject of location (Jordan, 2002, p.18). After the potential jurors are given an extensive voir dire, the jurors deemed qualified to participate in the case move on to the court where they take the oath and begin the trial (Jordan, 2002, p.20). The individuals of the jury then listen closely as evidence is being brought forward by both the prosecutor and the defense attorney. The jurors then evaluate the evidence that has been brought to them alongside the law and create a verdict (Jordan, 2002, p.20). When the jurors reach their verdict, they present their findings to the court (Jordan, 2002, p.20). The only way the jury is able to reach their verdict is with the evidence presented to them by the

Jurors are selected at random and must be an American citizen. To qualify, jurors must also be over the age of eighteen, lived in the judicial district for a year, proficient English skills, and no mental or physical conditions. The juror must have also not have any felony charges punishable by imprisonment for more than a year or have been convicted of a felony. Active military members, officers, firemen, and government officials are exempt from jury service. Being summoned also does not guarantee that one will serve for the judge and attorneys will ask a number of questions to determine if the individual is sustainable.

The jury system was introduced in Queensland in 1867 as part of the Queensland Constitution Act. Juries are used in indictable offences in criminal trials. They are mainly used in the District and Supreme Court if the accused pleads guilty. Juries are used to decide the guilt or innocence, of the accused person, based on the facts and evidence provided in court by the Prosecution and Defence Council.

Jurors are chosen in a fashion that combines both random selection and deliberate choice. This process occurs in three stages which include compiling a master list, summoning the venire and conducting voir dire. This brief will be focusing on the voir dire stage as it is essential to understand

Firstly, i want to touch on the subject of religious beliefs. Is that a good enough reason to not serve on a Jury? I do not believe so. Yes, the bible does tell us not to judge each other, because we all have sinned. But, does being a juror really means passing judgement in that sense? When a group of people participate on a jury they are usually presented with evidence, testimony from eye witness and/ or expert testimony, from professionals, such as psychologists. So, it is really judgement based on the evidence presented or lack thereof. Therefore, no one should be able to use religious belief as an excuse to not participate in the legal system of the democracy in which they are apart of.

A jury is defined by a sworn body of people convened to render an impartial verdict (a finding of fact on a question) officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment. The jury dates back to the Magna Carta in England, when it was said that no free man shall be imprisoned except by lawful judgement of his peers. The word ‘peer’ comes from a latin word meaning equal. These early jury trials were, however, based on tests of ‘good faith’ rather than on the facts in a legal dispute. To be judged by your peers means to be judged by persons with the same legal standing, ordinary members of the community. The Jury system reflects the idea that everyone in the community is responsible for the administration of justice. The

This essay will evaluate the argument for and against the jury system, discuss and evaluate proposed or recent reforms to the jury system in England and Wales. Finally, it will consider the alternatives to the current jury system.

In order to fulfill an individual’s constitutional right to a trial overseen by a jury of his or her peers, the process of juror selection is repeated every day in courtrooms around the country. The process is not only vital to the American justice system as a whole; for the prospective juror it is also a defining feature of their U.S. citizenship. Juror selection and the accompanying voir dire, when examined for more than its procedural parts, reveals itself to be more complex than a set of ordinary practices. The frameworks established by Emile Durkheim, Arnold Van Gennep, and Victor Turner help to separate the ritual elements present in jury duty from aspects that are more representative of “technological routine”.

Challenges of cause is when judges dismiss jury/juror who are bias or can’t put their personal feelings aside. For example, a woman who was in an abusive relationship and was able to escape can not server in a jury because she is obsvsily expected to have a bias against a defendant being trial for a domestic violnence. Another circumstances where a lawyer may want to make a challenge for cause is for example, a black jury whose son got shot by a white cop can not be server in a jury cases where a defendant is a white cop and he is being trial for shooting a young black man. However, lawyers can not dismiss an individual due to his/her enthnicity, race, or religion. A challenge for cause can only be made base on the juror’s experiences or beliefs. Another options avalible to lawyers is peremptory

To be a good juror there are a few key elements I believe are required. One good key element to have while being a juror is to listen effectively and take very good notes. You want to be able to have a very clear understanding of the case and take notes if you later forget minor details and want to remember. A second, key element to have while being a juror is to ask good questions. Being able to ask good questions can open up a more clear understanding of the case. Lastly, you want to listen and use all the evidence presented in an effective manner. This is important because sometimes evidence used can be false, as seen in the movie 12 angry men.

The selection of the jury is super important because you need people who aren't going to be biased about a certain situation or the race of the individual on trial so the verdict is fair. The selection of the jury has to be full of people who are honest, un-biased, not an impulsive decider, and not afraid to voice their opinions. I would look for juror's with these