Jurors should not know anything about a specific case and not follow public affairs and read the news (Doc F). When a person is selected to be part of a jury, they have to say an oath stating that they will not use their emotions to determine the verdict of a trial. If a juror is caught using their emotions, they will be fined for a crime called perjury. Since there are twelve people in a jury, there is a variation of opinions when the jury decides a verdict. But, a judge is more professional and knows how to only use the evidence provided and be less biased.
On the 14th of October 2011, Mr Rayney had submitted an application for a trial which only involved a judge without a jury present. This was due Mr. Rayney assuming that a strong bias had been manifested pre-trial as a result of the subjective publicity revolving around the death of his wife, Corryn(The Conversation, 2012). Therefore, the jury and any member of the public would already have preconceived views in favour of Mr Rayney being guilty of murdering his wife. The trial was successful for Mr Rayney where he was acquitted of murdering his wife. Similarly, this issue is somewhat common as it had also occurred in the case Evans v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 182, in which both appellants had made appeals after being convicted for murder.
Having an all-white jury is not a jury of your peers; this jury was mad at
1.0 Introduction Section 80 guarantees the right to trial by jury. The Queensland Jury Act 1995 provides the current legislation which decrees that all trials on indictment must be by jury. In the ninety years since this legislation was passed, an increase of trial complexity has occurred, leaving many jurors with the inability to comprehend the information and evidence procured in a trial. This proceeds to make lay juries ineffective and unreliable. To remedy the situation, specialised juries should be introduced to minimize the amount of incorrect verdicts, misunderstandings in court, jury misconduct, and avoidance of jury duty.
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.
“When you go into court you are putting your fate into the hands of twelve people who weren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty” quoted by a man whose name is Norm Crosby. People who get called in for jury duty who are biased or unfair on the case have a valid reasoning to be dismissed from sitting in on a jury duty. Although some people don’t always take advantage of this opportunity, they are stuck in attending the jury duty and is unfair because they are biased to the situation. This ties into the short play called “Twelve Angry Men” written by Reginald Rose, because there were jurors who sat in on the case who were biased to the setting and continued to make an appearance at the jury duty. “Twelve Angry Men”, Rose demonstrates the danger
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
As a result, the trial and the jury should be more objective. The jury's verdict on whether the defendant is guilty is essential to the operation of the jury system. Since their decision might have far-reaching effects, they have become an integral element of the trial process (Ruderman, 2020). However, this may also make jurors a troublesome part of the process since they may need to thoroughly examine the material or apply the right roof standards to hand down verdicts. 3 resolve these problems.
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.
The jury system has cases where jurors are influenced by the media because it is almost impossible to find someone who has not heard about the case and formed a personal opinion already (Doc F). In widely known cases, jurors may have been influenced by outsiders and the media indirectly and directly. For example, in the People vs. O.J. Simpson case, the infamous decision might have been made because of the jurors discussing the case with people who they are not suppose to discuss it with. An argument can be made that jurors are specifically instructed not to discuss the case or read anything about it, but there is no way to verify that the jurors are actually following this rule. Jurors can also have personal bias because they are very different from the defendant or prosecution (Doc E).
One of the most important benefits, however, is the reduced risk of a compromise verdict. The overall benefit of majority verdicts suit the circumstances for all but the commonwealth laws. (Knox 2002) “When a lone ratbag juror can abort a trial, the time-honoured idea of the unanimous verdict starts to look decidedly unsound.” In the book ‘Secrets of the Jury Room’ Knox broadcasts the ideals of jurors acting selflessly and complains about rogue jurors messing up a trial.
In the short story “The Cask of Amontillado”, Edgar Allan Poe uses hyperboles to develop a theme of revenge and retaliation in the plot. Montressor commits much time to bring across “the thousand injuries [for] Fortunato, ...but when [Fortunato] ventured upon insult” Montresor deems revenge (Poe, 1). In this device of a hyperbole which is implied in the hook of the story, the tone and theme of the plot is already starting to set. The over-exaggeration of the many injuries Montresor says he has set up for Fortunato, and the addition of the insults Fortunato provides already describe the disputes between the two.
No. 8: I think that the jury system we have today has its own advantages and disadvantages. For example, a jury that consists of jurors who are biased could be manipulated by ‘outsiders’ through bribery or some jurors, as we have discussed before, might have some personal prejudices/beliefs that may affect their decision making. But there are some advantages as well because the decision that is made by the jury is thought out very carefully by a group of people. Interviewer: [gathers all his papers]
The last danger to the justice system is jurors on the jury duty have no common sense to figure out the truth behind cases. One example is in the play “Twelve Angry Men” juror 10 says about juror 8 “ He’s a common ignorant slob. He don’t even speak good English” (Rose 326)! Then juror 11 corrects juror 10 saying “He doesn’t even speak good English” (Rose 326). Also anyone that is a United States citizen and of the age of 18 is allowed to be called to be on jury duty.
In this paragraph, the advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury will be discussed. The main advantages are that juries introduce community values into the legal process and can influence the system (Joyce, 2013); they can achieve a sense of equity and fairness without enforcing unjust laws; in addition, juries are independent and neutral (Davies, 2015). Moreover, they guarantee participation from the public in a democratic institution (Hostettler, 2004), and represent the population thanks to the randomness with which jurors are decided (Davies, 2015). On the other hand, the most important disadvantages are that jurors have no prior contact with the courts, no training (Hostettler, 2004) and therefore they lack knowledge of law, courtroom proceedings (Joyce, 2013), and lack of ability to understand the legal directions (Thomas, 2010). Moreover, they must face evidence which is highly technical (Hostettler, 2004).
