What Role Does Jury Service Play?

The modern jury is composed of a maximum of 12 members. Typically, in murder and treason, the jury consists of 12 members, while in other criminal trials it may be 9. In civil matters, the jury often consists of 9 members. Before

First, a good juror would need to be not racist, or sexist, because it would make the system more fair. On page 16 juror 10 states that “You can’t believe a word they say.” When you put a certain person with a group of people, and label it “them or they” you are most likely against them. Also on page 16, juror 9 states against juror 10 stating, “What a terrible thing for a man to believe! Since when is dishonesty a group characteristic?” Defending the accused, and the rest of the jury from his statement. In conclusion, with no racism or sexism in America’s criminal justice system, everything

Racial disparity in the sentencing process of the criminal justice system also exists because of racial jurors. To eliminate the suspensions of racial disparity of racial jurors the jury will select at least one African-American to serve for the jury. A percentage of African-Americans oppose capital punishment (Tabak, 1999, p. 6). Prosecutors commonly discriminate against African-Americans during challenges of discretions and blatantly abuse the powers of prosecutors. Juries predominantly use more Whites in every trial is inappropriate on the levels of the criminal justice system. Americans have rights to a trial by jury of peers and has the right not to exclude minorities in the selection of a jury. Excluding minorities in a jury of an individual’s peers is a violation of an objective and fair trial for a defendant.

When thinking of a jury, there is a belief that everyone is fair when it comes to making the decision of whether the person being accused of the crime is guilty or not guilty because of the person’s race. What if this belief is not necessarily correct? There have been many instances in whether race has been a factor when the jury makes a decision. According to Baskin, Goldstein, and Sommers (2014), there has been enough evidence to show that racial biases influences the decisions of a jury. In this paper, the articles will show how jury decision-making is influenced by the offender’s race.

“The harm from discriminatory jury selection extends beyond that inflicted on the defendant and the excluded juror to touch the entire community. Selection procedures that purposefully exclude black persons from juries undermine public confidence in the fairness of our system of justice. Discrimination within the judicial system is most pernicious because it is ‘a stimulant to the race prejudice which is an impediment to securing to [black citizens] that equal justice, which the law aims to secure to all others.’” (72 A.B.A.J. 68, July, 1986) With the Court’s ruling new standards were set that required the defendant to show: --That they are members of a cognizable racial group and that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove from the venire members of the defendants’ race --The defendants may rely on the fact that peremptory challenges are a jury selection practice which allow those who are minded to discriminate to do so --That these facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used that practice to exclude the veniremen from the petit jury on account of their race. (Batson v. Kentucky 476 U.S. 79 [1986])

Jury Nullification is the process that allows members of the juror to acquit a defendant for crimes they do not feel is grounds for punishment. Although, many jurors may not know this is an option to many cases, it is still an option. If citizens use this option in many of the courtroom proceedings, there will be fewer people who are serving time in prison. On the other hand, this does interfere with the decision- making process. This paper will explain whether ethnicity influences courtroom proceedings and judicial practices. It will summarize the arguments for and against ethnicity-based jury nullification. Including contemporary examples of

The sixth amendment of the constitution guarantees a criminal defendant trial by an impartial jury of their peers. Jury selection is a little more complex than sending out jury duty notices and going to trial, it has its own process to ensure all is fair. The Jury is a pertinent part of the judicial process and a key piece to upholding justice.

Jury selection beings with a summons being sent out to all eligible adults. These summons, in Canada, are sent out randomly in order to obtain representativeness amongst the jury members (Friedland, 1990). While this seems to be the best way of obtaining impartial jurors, it sometimes ends up creating other problems through-out the trial. The Crown and defense try to avoid problems, such as bias, impartiality, pre-trial publicity, and polarization, during jury

Based on the United States Constitution, all citizens have the right to a “Trial by Jury,” which is a legal proceeding in which a jury makes a decision in order to direct the actions of a judge. A jury pool is randomly selected first, and then the potential jurors are notified. After, “Voir Dire,” or jury selection, occurs where twelve people are chosen for jury duty.

There are many court cases that have had issues regarding an impartial trial and that has led to something called a Batson Challenge. A Batson Challenge is an objection to the validity of a peremptory challenge, on grounds that the other party used to exclude a potential juror based on race, ethnicity, or sex (www.law.cornell.edu/batsonchallenge). Three are three steps to a Batson Challenge. First, the defendant must show sufficient

In other words, courts are struggling to successfully and randomly select jury pools with a structure which reflects the racially diverse populations they serve. One reason which has been identified as a cause of this struggle is a “key factor associated with the underrepresentation of minorities is that jury questionnaires in many predominantly minority areas come back to the court as undeliverable or do not come back at all” (Joshi & Kline, n.d.). So, if the court cannot locate a potential juror or does not obtain a completed form back, this significantly cuts down on the potential jurors which Prosecutors and Defenders have to choose from. By implementing a mandated jury for each and every criminal trial, not only are the benefits of receiving an impartial and fair trial increased, but the opportunity to have the evidence heard in order to come to a verdict rather than basing it off of the defendant’s race or gender is also

Juries allow and force the public to have a personal knowledge of court proceedings, protect against the bias of a single person, and provide the public with certainty that there is not corruption in our judicial system. No human system of justice is perfect, but I believe that what Benjamin Franklin said regarding the Constitution also applies to our jury system, “It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does” (Benjamin Franklin to the Federal Convention).

Another advantage of a juror is that they are chosen randomly from the electronic roll, decreasing the chance of any biased race or specific ethnic people being chosen. The ministry of justice published research in 2007, showing that there isn’t any difference between blacks, whites, and minority ethic and responding positively when summed for jury service. Furthermore it also shows how all races and ethnic groups are equally represented among those chosen for jury service. As well as that this research proved that mixed ethic groups of juror’s verdict didn’t discriminate against defendants, based on their ethnicity.

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 a group of 12 people aged between 18 and 70 who have been randomly selected from the electoral roll. Juries are only used for indictable criminal offences, these cases are held in either the District or Supreme court.