Essay on The Value Of A Jury System

"Today, jurors sometimes leave courtrooms in tears after convicting people they believed were morally (if not legally) innocent, or after witnessing the harsh sentences handed down by judges at the sentencing phase of seemingly minor cases. That is exactly the sort of travesty trial by jury was intended to prevent. If the law were just and justly applied, jurors would have no reason to regret their verdicts, or the sentences that are meted out later by judges." (Trial by Jury Website) This would seemingly encourage the American judicial system to adapt the jury system to meet the needs of our current American society. It is unpleasant for the jurors to make very hard choices concerning the lives of other fellow citizens. It is also hard for the persons who are standing trial to know that their fate is going to rest with people with little or no knowledge of the law.

In England, King John was restricting the citizens’ rights, consequently the nobles rebelled against King John. In 1215 AD, the nobles forced King John to sign a document called the “Magna Carta” (or “Great Charter” in English). The Magna Carta tried to enforce the concepts of rule of law, trial by jury, and limited government. Due process is a fair trial by your peers and a speedy trial, which makes it less likely for an unjust trial. This concept is reflected in the United States Constitution: Clause 39 of the Manga Carta states, “No free man is to be arrested, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any other way ruined, nor will we go against him or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” The Manga Carta is saying that you need to have a trial by jury. Article 2, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, the document that formed the American government, states: “The Trial of all Crimes; except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury.” The Constitution was denoting that a citizen has the right to a trial by jury, parallel to the Manga Carta. A trial by jury is an important concept in a government, because it allows people to be tried justly. If

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.

One reason why jury trials shouldn’t be an option is because jurors are incompetent. The cartoon of Document E isn’t just humorous, it’s also pretty true. Jurors are forced

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

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

Document C Analysis • 1. Citizenship • 2. Person who enjoy the right to trial by jury, jurors, and American democracy as a whole. • 3. They believe that the jury system gives ordinary citizens an important role in the oversight of the judicial branch of government.

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

Juries exists in the criminal trial to listen to the case presented to them and, as a third, non-bias party, decide beyond reasonable doubt if the accused is guilty. For the use of a trial by juror to be effective, no bias should exists in the jurors judgments, the jurors should understand clearly their role and key legal terms, and the jury system should represent the communities standards and views whilst upholding the rights of the accused and society and remain cost and time effective.

As evident in the words of the Constitution, the Framers sought to shape a perfect union out of Colonial America while also reinforcing the importance of individual liberties via the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is a collection of the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Nearly a decade following the Continental Congress free of speech is preserved and guaranteed by the first amendment, solidifying the value Colonial Americans place upon individual liberties. By mimicking the principles laid out in the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights most heavily defends individual liberties. Liberties such as protection against unwarranted search and seizures, the right to a speedy trail, and trail by jury. By defining and defending these individual liberties Colonial Americas designed a system for the collective good that would provide justice to the

There are certain aspects of the United States’ government that seem to be at the core of ensuring democracy for all citizens. These ideas include representative leaders like the President, or the bicameral legislature. Similarly, the jury system is another structure of the government that many people hold close to their hearts. Although it seems like the ultimate way that the citizens can self-govern, is the jury system really the best way to reach a verdict in civil and/or criminal cases? The bottom line is that the jury system is an outdated structure. Specifically, bench trials, or trials decided only by a judge, are much more effective than jury trials because judges are more educated, less susceptible to popular influence, and are not

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

Juries provide a public opinion which helps show what the public would think about the case and weather the accused is guilty or not guilty.

As these lists have grown the number of cases that are tried by a jury

The right to a trial by jury is a core element of the United States Criminal Justice System. This right is guaranteed to all citizens by the highest law of the land: The United States Constitution. But are juries truly an effective means of securing justice? The movie 12 Angry Men provides commentary on this question with its portrayal of twelve jurors deliberating over a murder case. The jury initially seems bound to condemn the defendant, a young man of nineteen years, to the electric chair, but a single man, Juror no. 8 descents against the majority. Over the course of the film, tensions rise, and after much debate Juror no. 8 manages to convince the other eleven jurors to eventually vote not guilty. Through their debates and casual side conversations, we are shown the role of personal biases and group manipulation tactics that can impede with objective analysis and ultimately the attainment of justice. Thus, the Movie 12 Angry Men mostly serves to challenge the jury system as a means of securing justice by demonstrating the harmful effects of personal biases, the lack of dedication to the system, and the potential for manipulative tactics.