Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Paper on jury nullification
Essay on john rawls theory of justice
Essay on john rawls theory of justice
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Paper on jury nullification
Essay on john rawls theory of justice
Essay on john rawls theory of justice
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
Our rejection of simple-majority jury decisions, I believe, was deeply-rooted. In the 1700’s, Sir William Blackstone made his opinion clear that a jury trial was the most “transcendent privilege” any person can hope for. 3 Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 379 (1768). That no state can take away your property or liberty without the “unanimous consent of twelve of his neighbors and equals,” was a great comfort to Blackstone, as it should be to all of us. Id. John Adams believed that a unanimous jury is the thing that “preserves the rights of mankind.”
With the obvious benefits that jury nullification can bring to the courtroom, it could be much easier to create a more effective and fair court system for our country's future, which is why this process is necessary to the growth and development of our society as a
America gives any defendant a trial by judge, unless the judge allows a trial by jury. There are certain cases that need a better balance between a guilty verdict and the defendant’s freedom. Murder trials often receive 12 jurors to decide the defendant’s fate, while civil cases often have a judge making the verdict. The issue lies in citizens because they are unaware of the seriousness that presides in choosing another human’s future. Judges should be the only decision makers to choose a verdict which gives a defendant a fair trial in how they will use fact over feeling, they will be focused on deciding the verdict, and they are aware of the moral issues that may come out in a case.
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.
The American jury system has been around for centuries but all of a sudden, people are trying to change it. Hundreds of years ago in England, the first of the jury systems were adopted. When there was a crime, the accused was brought before a judge and jury (B.E.). The jury, a group of twelve white men, from the area the crime was committed, heard the case and all of the evidence (B.E.). Those 12 men, decided whether or not the person being accused was guilty or not.
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
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.
“Observers of the American jury system have remarked on its ability to elevate ordinary citizens into self-governors.” (Document C, 293) Many people complain about the amount of government control that there is in America. This is one of the things that gives us a say in our government. This allows us to govern ourselves and work our hardest to choose the correct verdict for the case.
“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” This quote stated by George Bernard Shaw represents America’s jury system perfectly. We should ultimately eliminate the jury system from court, and use the bench system in all criminal and civil cases. Although there are many reasons why eliminating the jury system is a better choice, many people want to keep the jury system only because we have used it for a long time and they fear change. Without change, progress is impossible and those who want to keep the jury system should change their mind.
I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him!” By allowing every citizen to serve on the jury it can cause the jurors to get off topic and bring in personal matters not needed. If they were selective, verdicts would be made faster and wouldn't allow the jurors to be sidetracked. Those are the reasons why every American citizen should serve on the a jury.
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
Regardless of the type of legal case, jurors who are presented jury nullification instructions are more likely to draw conclusions based upon their own conscience rather than consult legal policies during deliberation, which affects the resulting verdict. Conscious collective decisions are the most likely outcome, as jurors are granted the right to reject the law as they see fit. Due to this, the use of nullification instructions may continue to decline, as has occurred over the last century. (Smith, 1999)
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.
This essay will briefly discuss the role of the jury and how it works, from the principle behind it, to the method with which members are selected, and to the powers available to jurors. Moreover, it will outline advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury, and it will point out a couple of ways which could ameliorate this type of trial. Trial by jury has been a part of the criminal justice system since the 12th century (Davies, 2015), it is considered an ancient right and a symbol of liberty (Hostettler, 2004). It creates no precedent and it can decide challenging cases equitably without making bad law, it also brings members of the public into the administration of justice and into an understanding of legal and human rights (Hostettler,