Abolishing The Jury System

Since the time of the ancient Romans, juries have been a way to solve criminal and civil decisions, but are they actually as fair and effective as we think they are? In today's world, juries are no longer an appropriate way to solve problems impartially in our modern society. I believe that the jury system in the United States is often biased and should be abolished due to its ineffectiveness.

First, how is a jury chosen? Judges and lawyers randomly select a group of about one to two hundred citizens from the "jury pool". The judges question and interview the citizens to see if they are biased toward certain subjects and chooses six to twelve people to represent the jury and court. These people, with no experience whatsoever, have to listen

Although some measures are taken to prevent this, many jurors are still prejudiced toward certain subjects and unable make a justified decision. It is said that bringing ordinary citizens into the world of court and law will help them be able to understand the justice system and teach them how to make a candid and unbiased decision. However, most of the jurors that are chosen do not possess the knowledge and experience necessary in order to reach a neutral and equitable verdict with the information and time given.(counter-argument) Many juries have made many controversial decisions such as the infamous OJ Simpson murder case. The jury acquitted the defendant, but many believe that the jury was biased. With the jury causing countless problems in the courts, why have a jury at all? Because of the bias among the jurors, they can often make the innocent guilty and the guilty innocent.(Antithesis) Many other countries such as the government of India, have "made the decision to abolish the jury system. It is seen that consensus of the jury are often biased." The jury problem affects every court in the country like an uneven balance, easily swaying because of the objects, or jurors, in the

That's right. In fact, juries decide less than 4% of criminal cases and less than 1% of civil cases filed in court. How can juries, clearly written in the Bill of Rights as the 6th and 7th amendments which states that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."(allusion) If this is clearly expressed as a imperative right in the Bill of Rights, then why has the usage of juries declined so dramatically? The answer lies in the concept of the guilty plea. The guilty plea, a plan proposed by the judicial courts, declares that if the prosecutor presents the accused with a decision to plead guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence, the accused gets a shorter prison sentence, then the usage of a jury is eliminated. The use of guilty pleas has increased from a mere 20 percent to 90 percent in three centuries. The question is why should the Bill of Rights bind our nation to an outdated law and compel us to use a system that is often prejudiced and unfair?