The Pros And Cons Of The American Jury System

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

Ever since the beginning of our country’s existence we have had this idea that every single person, despite whatever crime they had committed, were citizens regardless. Those citizens have rights, those rights included being innocent until proven guilty, and having the right to a trial by jury. We have fought to protect that last right particularly hard, however, only a very small percentage of cases these days are even seen by juries. So, is a trial by Jury really worth it? Or is it better to have a trial by a single judge? One might be led to think that a bench trial, or trial by judge, is the better option due to the extremely low volume of jury trials. However, that is not the case. Jury trials are better because they are less biased, they are more accurate, and they are fairer than bench trials.

In the early days of the American jury, many of the laws and roles were modeled after British Parliamentary and English common law. (Hans, Valerie P.) It was expected to do this seeing as this is what type of system colonists were familiar with. However, they were rebels

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.

Trial by jury is not a new concept; it has been around since ancient times. The United States’ Founding Fathers embedded the right to trial by jury in the U.S. Constitution because King George III often denied them of the benefits of trial by jury (Shepard, 2005). Juries are needed to defend against absolute government, but juries are not entirely fair. For something around so long, the concept of a justice system based in adversarial processes still may be flawed. Jurors may possess implicit biases, which alter their judgments. Elek and Hannaford-Agor (2013) define implicit bias as, “an individual’s unconscious attitudes [that] introduce unjustified assumptions about other people and related evidence that can distort a person’s judgment

The right to a trial is one of the intrinsic elements of the American criminal justice system for more than two centuries. In its mandate to regulate government power to judge people accused of transgressing against the laws of the society, the mechanism of the jury allows the citizens themselves to determine the guilt or innocence of the person. Though juries have generally served a vital function in the criminal justice system, the reputation of the jury system has come under fire over the past several years.

This question has left a question in many people’s minds. Does the jury system have the importance we invest into it? The jury is considered as a vital part of the UK law system, the jury system is a gathering of 12 people who sit in civil and criminal trials and make decision with the information collected. The jury system has an approximate 800 years of history. Early jurors in England had different roles compared to the jury system in the 21st century, their position was to act as witnesses which provided reports of local associations which was also called dark ages. However, the role of the jury today is to know as little knowledge about the case before the trial. The Juries

Serve on a jury when called upon – U.S. citizens, serving on a jury is an important service to the community and court system (USCIS, 2014). It also gives the person accused the right to a speedy and fair trial of an impartial jury. The service allows the opportunity to participate in a vital task of achieving fair results in the matters of the court and the accused. Individuals of a jury have different opinions and it allows everyone to understand and see the beliefs and opinions of others in a group.

The jury system helps convict more criminals than by the bench. Only .75 percent of the cases that were filed last year were before juries (document A). That number may seem low, but in fact bench trials are not far off. That number is from federal civil cases and not criminal and for good reason. The total number of federal criminal defendants in 2010 is 2,352 and the percent convicted were 87.8 (document A). People think, wow that is not

The implicating factor of a crime is the classification that defines these rights and duties instead of giving the rules in such a way so that things can be set up. In the U. S. there are criminal procedure and rules that the courts must follow. When a crime is committed after arrest the district attorney or federal prosecutor must file charges against the offender who has committed a crime. These procedural laws settle on how to proceed with these crimes and criminal acts concerning the enforcement of law that will occur in our courts. International law and domestic law are two different types of law.

A jury trial is most commonly used in criminal trials, but in some cases can be used in a civil trial. Steve Wilson et al. clarify that ‘during a trial, the judge directs the jury to the relevant principles of the law and evidence. The jury’s job in a trial is to determine issues of fact.’ A jury trial is considered to be the more impartial trial in a court of law as the jury reach their verdict based on facts they’ve heard rather than the law therefore taking things the judge alone would not take into consideration when trying the defendant. There are several advantages regarding trials by a jury, however, research shows there are also a range of disadvantages within these trials that may be a cause for concern if ever bought to the public eye. Throughout this essay analyses will be made on both the advantages and disadvantages of a jury trial and a conclusion will be drawn on how they can affect the jury trials and if this is an underlying problem within the English criminal justice system.

Do you think the U.S. jury system should be adopted by other countries? Yes. Based on the core value of the U.S juridical system and the constitutional rights of being tried by a jury of your peers, which is the highest law of the land, allow a person to be a part of America’s democracy. What factors do you think should inform a country’s decision to adopt a jury system? The major factor that I believe should inform a country’s decision to adopt the U.S. jury system is tyranny. This would eliminate the government using excessive power to oppress their citizens. For example, by allowing citizens a jury of their peers make the final decision of a trial makes a country unique and a reason to be proud.

We, as Americans, have the right to a trial by judge or a trial by jury; nonetheless, there are pros and cons for each of these choices. The pros and cons affect both the offender and the prosecutor.

Because jurors are selected at random from different locations, the jury system allows for more types of citizens to get involved in the justice/political process of their communities and creates a representative justice system. There also is a strong correlation among past jurors and increased voting percentage, indicating that the experience likely prompted them to feel more connected with their government. The jury experience is also is an educational tool for the citizens, who learn more about how the justice system works throughout the entire process.