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.
- PRO: Those in favor of abolishing peremptory challenges argue that this current process is lengthy, costly, and ineffective. The author supports this stance with high-profile case trials of previous times. In a case such as the OJ Simpson’s trial, the author reveals that there were 300 citizens selected to be potential jurors and only a few were actually chosen. Additionally, prosecutors and defense attorneys took three months to eliminate candidates and did so with the aid of jury consultants. Consequently, peremptory challenges are believed to slow down court proceedings and making it more costly for the time that is said to be wasted.
a. Outline for Ernie the process his trial will follow: Jury Selection: The jury selection phase of the trial will begin. A fair jury will be chosen after both the prosecution and defence counsel have had a chance to background check potential jurors. Opening Statements: After the jury's selection, each side will present their opening argument. The defence will lay out their plan of attack after the prosecution presents their theory of the case.
The 12 jurors can work together in the back room to get any drifters caught up with the case and from that, they all can make a logical decision based upon the fact in the case. Although, if the judge drifts off, his decision is final and he may not be using all of the facts because the judge wasn't listening to the whole case. The odds are 1 judge, who may or may not have been completely focused, verses 12 people who know the facts and can make an educated decision. Any sensible person would go with the 12 up-to-date jurors. Additionally, in 2008, a 2 year old, Caylee Anthony, was killed and her mother, Casey Anthony was accused of her murder.
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.
Guilty or not guilty, all citizens deserve a thorough trial to defend their rights. Formulating coherent stories from events and circumstances almost cost a young boy his life. In Twelve Angry Men, 1957, a single juror did his duty to save the life of an 18 year old boy by allowing his mind to rationalize the cohesive information presented by the court and its witnesses. The juror’s name was Mr. Davis, he was initially the only one of 12 jurors to vote not guilty in reason that the young boy, sentenced with first degree murder, may be innocent. I am arguing that system 1 negatively affects the jurors opinion on the case and makes it difficult for Mr. Davis to convince the other jurors of reasonable doubt.
Is the American Jury System still a Good Idea? In the American Judicial System today, there is a choice between trial by jury or bench trial. Trial by jury is used today by selecting jurors from pools of people who are eligible, adult American citizens. Trial by jury is often controversial because of how the jurors are not professionals whereas in a bench trial, a judge is highly educated in law (Doc B).
“The boy is five feet eight inches tall. His father was six feet two inches tall. That’s a difference of six inches. It’s a very awkward thing to stab down into the chest of someone who’s half a foot taller than you are. ”-(Juror two, 54)
While both end up voting the same way, their approaches throughout the majority of the film are vastly different. To start, the third juror is much more factual, stating in the film, “Okay let’s get the facts… and he ran to the door of his apartment and the boy!”(12 Angry Men) This immediately shows the viewer that Juror 3 will base the majority of his argument in fact. In contrast, Juror 8 feels that communicating with the other jurors and piecing together their views is a better way to solve the case. This is shown when Juror 8 says, “There were eleven votes guilty.
The strong point process of the criminal justice system is that the person being trialed has the right to be trialed someone equal to them. With this right, there is the chance that every member of the court is going to need to have a fair point of view, reviewing very carefully and paying attention to every single detail with all the evidence provided to them and then go back and determine if the criminal is guilty or not guilty. This is a substantial part of the process because if one of the people sitting on the jury finds discovers that the defendant is not guilty by just using evidence in front of them. There are a few things that the judge can do. The judge can try and get the jury to decide on one side, the judge can repeat the rules
As mentioned in the story, juror #8 was the only person with the vote not guilty. When he kept convincing them that the defendant wasn't guilty, they realized he was trying to change their mind. After that he gave up and said that he'll go with a Guilty verdict if all of the eleven remaining jurors vote Guilty again, he will change his vote to guilty, but surprisingly one vote was not guilty. As time passed by and juror #8 was giving them so much evidence that the defendant is not guilty, many off them stared having second thoughts. By the end of the jurors conversation everybody has changed their votes to not guilty.
In these two critically-acclaimed movies, government ignorance is explored in distinct ways. In 12 Angry Men, a jury of 12 men is sent to determine the fate of an 18-year-old slum-raised Latino boy accused of stabbing his father to death. A guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence. In Beasts of the Southern Wild we are taken on an adventure alongside Hushpuppy, an African-American six-year old, who lives on a poverty-stricken island called the Bathtub and whose father’s tough love prepares her for a harsh world. As completely opposite as these two perspectives seem, each represents opposing sides of social injustice and ultimately deliver similar messages.
Juror 3 was intimidating the other jurors, trying to convince them to stick with the guilty verdict. Juror 2 was guilty of self-censorship agreeing with the rest of the group to influence his decisions. The whole group began with the illusion of unanimity. According to Janis illusion of unanimity is, “the majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.” (Psysr.org,
The results of these informal practices only proved that the accused wasn't guilty because the arguments were not valid enough to incriminate him. Leadership did emerge differently from a small group setting because a designated leader should not let a group member overtake his position. So Juror #8 as a initiator should have never tried to take the position of Juror #1. But it was needed for him to do that so that the group could reach into a correct decision. If Juror #8 wouldn't have voiced his opinion then maybe this innocent young men could have been acquitted.
The jurors took literally almost day just bickering and arguing over whether the boy was guilty or not. In act two the jurors were starting to change their mind about their vote on whether or not the boy was guilty or not. That is where they started to kind of come to an agreement. From the beginning of act one juror number eight was always on the boys side, and the other guys always questioned why he thought the boy was innocent. Juror number eight did not have a reason he said “ he’s nineteen years old”.
