Essay about The Right to a Free Trial

First Amendment rights are like an antique; they have been around for a while, and people will treasure them for years to come. Americans have valued First Amendment rights since the constitution was written, and still do to this day. As well as valuing them, Americans are also willing to fight for their rights; whether it is by going to court, picketing, or protesting. As a result of this willingness to fight, we have seen many court cases and protests about First Amendment rights, and will likely continue to see these for a long time.

America is the universal symbol of freedom. But is it really free? Does the history of the United States stay true to the ideas of our forefathers? Or has the definition been altered to fit American policies? Has freedom defined America? Or has America defined freedom? I believe America was at first defined by freedom, then after time, America defined freedom, altering the definition to fit the niche it fits in, but still keeping key components so it still seems to be staying true to the ideas of America’s founding fathers.

From the beginning, the United States Constitution has guaranteed the American people civil liberties. These liberties have given citizens rights to speak, believe, and act freely. The Constitution grants citizens the courage to express their mind about something they believe is immoral or unjust. The question is, how far are citizens willing to extend the meanings of these liberties? Some people believe that American citizens take advantage of their civil liberties, harming those around them. On the contrary, many other people feel that civil liberties are necessary tools to fight for their Constitutional rights.

The jury represents the voice of the people, regardless, juries are ethnically un-diverse, consist heavily of certain age groups and members of certain socioeconomic statuses. To ensure better representativeness, two specific reforms can be implemented. First, making avoiding jury duty more difficult. The list of excuses in the Act can be reduced to achieve this. Additionally, the reforms must address the racial diversity in juries. According to Israel, parties are likely to attempt to exclude Indigenous and other ethnic minorities from in the selection process (1998). However, for the jury to represent the voice of the people it must be racially diverse, as Australia is a very multicultural country. As a result, a possible reform is making it more difficult for the parties to object to certain jurors. To rectify the issue of a lack of competence in juries, a solution is to expand the kinds of cases that a judge-only trials. At present, for example, complicated tax and fraud cases require a judge-only trial. A reform is to make it possible for further kinds of cases to be added. An alternative reform is to allow an independent lawyer to explain issues to the jury outside of court sessions, rather than relying on the judges’ instructions alone. The lawyer could identify any misunderstandings and correct them. Overall, it is necessary for reforms to be put in place to address

To make a good juror, you would need someone who is not racist, sexist, or biased, because it would make our Criminal Justice System a lot more fair.

This amendment was a part of the Bill of Rights and adds a number of rights for an accused citizen. These rights include a fair trial, speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, a notice of accusation, a confrontation of the witness, and right to a lawyer. A speedy trial means that the government cannot delay a trial to keep you in jail. A public trial ensures that rules a being followed correctly. An impartial jury means that they will not convict you without sufficient evidence. A notice of accusation forces the government to tell you what you did wrong. A confrontation of a witness is that people who saw the crime must testify. A right to a lawyer means that you have the right to have a lawyer even if you do not have the money for one.

America is built on the foundation of society being run and well-flowing around the three values the Republic of the United States hold most dear to: equality, freedom, and justice. The rights of the accused is an important factor in maximizing justice. Amendments 4-8 in the Bill of Rights specifically detail how criminal law should be dealt with, and how justice can be ensured every step of the way. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments contain two systems that go hand in hand with one another, a due process and a trial by jury for all citizens. Amendments 4-8, a Due Process, and a Trial by Jury are essential for establishing the rights of the accused and their absence would be detrimental to the effectiveness of the American criminal justice system.

The Sixth Amendment provides that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a(n) speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.

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 classic 1957 movie 12 Angry Men delves in to a panel of twelve jurors who are deciding the life or death fate of an eighteen year old italian boy accused of stabbing his father to death. The twelve men selected as jurors are a diverse group, each coming to the table with their own socioeconomic backgrounds, personal experiences, prejudice’s, and all of this plays a role in the jurors attitudes and/or misconceptions of the accused young man. How each of the jurors, all but Juror Eight played by Henry Fonda, experiences and personalities impact their original vote of guilty is clear at the beginning of the movie with the first vote. However, from the start, Juror Eight displays confidence, and demonstrates leadership abilities utilizing

If someone holds bias in a jury, an innocent person may be found guilty. So the by sixth amendment stating this right, furthers the claim that it is the most important

The sixth amendment is the right to an impartial trial and the exclusion of a juror for certain reasons like race, gender, or sexual orientation violates that right. Everyone has the right to have a fair trial with the right jurors because ultimately they are determining how you might be spending the rest of your life.

Also prior to the trial, a jury of 6 to 12 people must be selected. Each jury member must go through a screening process to ensure that they have no connection to the trial, or any preconceived opinion of it that could keep them from being impartial to either side. A juror can be removed if they have any connection to the trial, and the defense

In 12 Angry Men, jurors determined if a young, poor Puerto Rican man murdered his father. Initially, eleven of the men determined that the defendant was guilty of murder; however, one juror held that the defendant was innocent, and he believed the man deserved a chance at being proven innocent. After intense debate, the jury found the defendant not guilty. Even though this movie shows evidence of prejudice, groupthink, conformity, cognitive heuristics, the catalyst of change and minority influence benefitted the jury in making a unanimous, educated decision about the fate of the young man.

of us fail to cherish and value our granted freedom. Many of us do not