Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Arguements for the jury system
Arguements for the jury system
Arguments for and against the jury system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Arguements for the jury system
Arguements for the jury system
Arguments for and against the jury system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Founding Fathers wanted the people of the United States to be in a democracy or self-government and established the jury system into the constitution. It is expensive and is a long process to start a jury trial. Also, jurors are not as professional as judges and can not determine a fair verdict. The Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) effect might also affect the verdict of the jury. The American jury system should not be used because of it not being cost-effective, the lack of experience of the jury, which leads to justice not being served, and the CSI effect impacting the
Like the Electoral College, several of the plans made by the Founding Fathers have lost some of their practicality. What worked in the past does not always work in the future, and this is the case for the jury system. The sole reason it was created was to ensure that each citizen was guaranteed a fair trial, which was a main concern due to Britain’s monarchy. In modern times, however, the judicial branch of the United States could easily give every citizen a fair trial with only a judge presiding over the case. It is clear that bench trials are superior to trials by jury because the citizens on juries are unqualified or biased, its benefits do not outweigh its burdens, and its claim to encourage civic duty is false.
Americans have control over the legislative and the executive branch of government by being able to elect leaders and think up an idea for a law. Even though the people do not get to elect judges in the judicial branch, they get to be a part of it themselves. The jury system encourages citizens to show their citizenship. Furthermore, it turns ordinary people into self-governors (Doc C). By people being apart of the jury system they are “promoting self-governance and civic participation” while they decide if a person is guilty or not guilty (Doc C).
The reason a jury trial is better suited than the bench trial because it provides fairness. This is shown in Document A in the Jury System Mini-Q where the chart had more convicted than those acquitted by about 87%. This
With twelve people judging a case, it is more likely that someone will have the sense and maturity to decide to put aside their own beliefs and only go with the facts. Thus, having a jury gives a better safety guard for the defendant. Yes, the media will often over-publicize a case, causing a possible bias in the jurors, but in the end in cases such as the one in Document D, the jury was able to put aside the media and do what is
Although these two high courts are different, but they have similar compositions. According to textbook Governing Texas (2nd Edition), both of judges in two high courts are “consists of nine justices” who are elected and
The American Jury System offers the United States citizens an opportunity to be proven guilty or innocent when a crime has been committed. The twelve person jury system was established in England hundreds of years ago. Originally this system was made up of twelve men and this was huge because they had the power to go against what the judge wanted in court. There are many vital points as to why our American jury system is successful; jury trials by the numbers, ownership by jury members towards the accused, how reliable or unreliable evidence is viewed by jurors, gender balance and the detailed screening process in which jurors are selected.
Our jury system stretches all the way back in England hundreds of years ago. Whenever a crime was committed in a community, a judge and his or her jury would come together to put the accused on trial. The judge served more as the legal expert over the trial. However, the jury was made up of twelve men who lived in the area that the crime was committed. These ordinary citizens were the ones that decided the verdict of the case.
Then the case may be dismissed or the trial may start all over again (LC). The origins of the jury system are from the 11th-century England. The concept was that people were entitled to a jury of their peers. At the time, a peer meant someone who knew the accused, someone who lived in the neighborhood and knew who was a liar and who
The jury may not be experienced enough and can make fatal mistakes. Not only are the jurors biased, they are inexperienced. As shown in cartoon 1, 2, and 3 (Document E), many of the jurors have no experiences with court and base their verdicts on factors other than what the lawyers are giving them. Examples such as the jurors being dogs, verdict based on appearance, and being distracted with other issues during the court trial. The juror is inexperienced and biased, while the judge is experienced with what is going around during a trial, and they have been trained to be able to see both sides of a story and decide on evidence and
In Twelve Angry Men, Juror 1(Foreman) says, “Anyway this friend of my uncle’s was on a jury once, about ten years ago- a case just like this one..... They let him off. Reasonable doubt. And do y’know, about eight years later they found out that he’d actually done it, anyway.” By allowing different people onto the jury, they have the ability to give assumptions and information about other cases which can sway and harm the verdict.
Another reason citizens question juries is that they have bias from personal experience or the media. The defendant and the prosecution criticize the jury system because the actual jurors may not understand the situation from any point of view because they come from different lifestyles (Doc E). The American jury system is not a good idea anymore because juries are not experts in law, they have bias, and are not “a jury of peers”. Because jurors are not experts in law, they are subject to be
This was determined from way back when America was first being created. Originally the U.S was control by the British but one of the main reasons for our independences from them other than the fact that the U.S. did not like their high taxes but also was because the jurors and their rights. According to the video “Annenberg Classroom: Juries” when a judge did not like the juries verdicts they were fine and threatened to have their nose cut off. American wanted their judicial to be fair and equal for all. However, they are wrong in the fact that all citizens should need to serve on the jury because people will misuse this power and will not truly understand their effect on the case and more importantly the people live on trail.
Federal and State Judges hear a variety of cases and have multiple levels of courts in which is ends at a high court for overall decisions. Each state in the U.S. creates their own judicial system. They determine how judges will selected and qualifications they feel is necessary to be a judge in that state. I am from Texas and our philosophy is no different. There are many differences between Texas and federal judges
They have to decide important matters, verdicts, without giving reasons about their decision (Hostettler, 2004); they can nullify a verdict even if the evidence is overwhelming (Joyce, 2013). Furthermore, juries are too expensive, prolong the length of the trial (Davies, 2015) and the guilty can walk free, while the innocent is convicted (Joyce, 2013). In addition, jurors should be representative of society, but it is not