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.
Have you ever been in a courtroom and thought about how the court decide if the verdict of the accused party is guilty or not? How can you recognize if there was sufficient evidence to determine if the verdict was just or unjust? How would know if a trial was fair? There are many trials in history to look at. One of Chicago most controversial murder trial, I would have to say, is the trial of Leopold and Loeb in determining if their trial was just or unjust.
By fair Jury, the trial must take place in the county the crime took place. The accused have to know what they 're being charged with, why they 're in jail, who said they did it, and ask them questions. Put cues can force anyone to come to their trial and the cutest also has the right to a lawyer and if they can 't afford one they will
The defendant gets read and explained to about their charge. If the defendant calls for a lawyer, the judge establishes one. The people in the courtroom, like witnesses try to provide evidence to support the side they are on. (How court works). People question if blacks are discriminated in courts like they were in the 1930’s, but our court systems today are way different and more fair now.
With a jury that cares about everything but the trial, how is the defendant suppose to be given a fair trial? He isn’t. The last piece of evidence is cartoon 3, where a dog is being judged by his natural enemies, feline (Document E). These ‘jurors’ all hate the dog and no matter what the evidence is, the dog will be guilty. It applies to our system with the notion that a suspect is hated by jurors because the media accuses them of being guilty before the trial begins.
Of course, it is true that judges are seen as more professional than a jury; there have undoubtedly been times when even a judge may be blinded by his or her own prejudices. As stated by Joe Anderson in Document D, jurors often do not “buy into science fiction” when faced with an obvious case. In the case of the death of Caylee Anthony, the jurors were not bemused by any ungrounded evidence that could have caused Casey Anthony to be found guilty. Certainly in a case of such popularity it is expected that jurors will often have their own preconceived notions about the verdict, but in the end of this case, these jurors were able to put aside their own opinions and only take the hard facts into consideration. Of course, this is the job of a judge as well, but with just one person judging a trial, it is more likely that he or she will give in to his or her own conception of the case.
Based on results, less than two percent of civil and criminal cases are heard by jurors. (Doc. A) Our jury system is excelling because these are only serious cases that are being heard by our American Jury System which means we can be very selective in our jury members. In most criminal cases, defendants agree to a guilty plea or a plea bargain.
During a Bench Trial, the judge decides what the verdict is and his or her opinion is the only one that matters. However, a Jury Trial uses the opinion of twelve ordinary citizens. Just based on the fact that more people are deciding the verdict makes it more just. One person, the judge, may overlook a small detail. Consequently, the case could have a totally different result if that detail was not overlooked.
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.
The trial judge reviews the evidence presented by the government; nevertheless, when the judge learns that no reasonable jury could reach any other decision because evidence to support a conviction is inadequate, the judge will enter a directed verdict favoring the defendant.
Juror are randomly chosen citizens brought in to watch and interpret the case, and break it down and decide whether the defendant is guilty or not. Reginald Rose´s 12 Angry Men was written after while watching real murder trial it inspired him to reveal the positives and negatives of Jury deliberations. While bench trial have strong merits, trial by Jury is more effective for many reasons including,the diversity and variety of backgrounds the jurors bring, the increase chance of discovering the truth, as well as, the fact that Jurors are usually more caring then a Judge who may be calloused from previous experiences is why trial by Jury is the fairest way to decide a criminal case. A significant advantage trial by jury offer is the diversity and variety in backgrounds the Jurors. While the Jurors were discussing the stab wound Juror Five presents the relevant the point with his jurors saying, ¨ You don 't hold this of knife that way.
The judge, in complex law concepts, needs to take more than reasonable care to explain the same to the jury for the jury to easily apply the law to the factual decision making. Even though the juries while reaching a verdict need to be considering the above still they many a times follow their own will rather than the law to the situation commonly referred to as the “jury nullification”. Juries have often targeted the behaviours of police and other criminal justice system actors. For example, observers have noted that in the murder trial of O. J. Simpson, juries may have used their power of the verdict to send a message to the police rather than to punish the
Origin and History of the Criminal Justice System The Criminal justice system is a system that was made to control crime and make punishments to whoever break a law or rule. The beginning of the criminal justice system of the United States goes all the way back when the United States still belonged to the Great Britain. Americans were under Great Britain laws and rules and most of the laws were unfair. After the Revolutionary War and the United States became independent and they needed to create their own types of system to run their country.
Jury systems exist all around the world. Many have a long history, while others are just emerging. Juries of different countries examine trials and decide on many factors in a court case. They play a vital role in court and are the deciding factor about whether a victim is guilty or not. The role of a jury may be different depending on the country.
