More handpicked essays just for you.
Jury nullification and legal theory essay
Essay about jury nullification
Strengths and weekness of jury nullification
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Jury nullification and legal theory essay
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
Jury convicted on weapons possession but acquitted on possession of the trunk contents. D’s argued that the guns were in the possession of the girl and they did not have possession. D’s challenged the constitutionality of the New York State statute which allowed a charge of illegal possession if a gun was found in a car occupied by all individuals
Ironically that's all they argued, they didn’t bother to use the 8th amendment as a defense. The benefits of being able to nullify a verdict as a jury is being able to provide a different socio-economic perspective. A judge works with crime everyday, most likely not living in the ghetto where some jurors may live. Juror’s with different perspectives of a crime can cause more linancy and sympathy towards a defendant.
When pilgrims first sailed to the new world they maintained their roots in English common law despite their quest for religious freedom. The Pilgrims established Colonial law three years after their landing on Plymouth where it was ruled: “that all criminal facts, and also matters of trespasse and debts betweene man and man should be tried by the verdict of twelve honest men to be impaneled by the authority in forme of a jury upon their oath.” The first case of a jury trial was in Plymouth, 1630 when John Billington was accused of murdering John Newcomin, a fellow colonist that was aboard the Mayflower. The defendant, John Billington was sentenced to hang after the jury convicted him of “willful murder by plain and notorious evidence.” Around the same time the Pilgrims settled in what would become Boston,
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.
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
“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)
Twelve Angry Men is in many ways a love letter to the American legal justice system. We find here eleven men, swayed to conclusions by prejudices, past experience, and short-sightedness, challenged by one man who holds himself and his peers to a higher standard of justice, demanding that this marginalized member of society be given his due process. We see the jurors struggle between the two, seemingly conflicting, purposes of a jury, to punish the guilty and to protect the innocent. It proves, however, that the logic of the American trial-by-jury system does work.
However they are wrong because some people will not take it serious as it need to be. Citizens should not be required to serve on jury because bias jurors. For example, in the play “Twelve Angry Men” during the deliberation of the verdict some of the jurors showed bias toward the young man on trial because of where he was from. “We 're not here to go into the reasons why slums are
The jury system is unique for it being the only form of civic participation in delivering justice in criminal trials. The main idea behind still conducting jury trials in many countries is the public trust that a trial by jury is fairer than being tried by a judge and that juries produce better justice. Juries are ideally made up of community members of all different occupations, age, education level, gender, race, culture and sexuality. This can lead to a decision that encompasses the views and opinions of a broad range of society. Since there are twelve jurors, it becomes difficult to bribe them or corrupt them and is reflective of the shared decision rather than having a one judge make an individual decision which could be clouded by individual
A flawed jury is what makes for an unfair trial. Juries are a crucial piece of the puzzle which helps create the system we have today, one where it needs to be represented in the right way that makes the justice system an improved one. The judicial system is one where the jury needs to accurately represent the community that the accused resides in, achieving this can impact the community first hand, make it easier to protect the defendant from unfair sentencing, and promote public confidence in the justice system which is what lots of people distrust and lack in. The citizens in a community are the ones that get impacted from the actions of accused in the first hand which is why they need to be accurately shown in the jury.
However, their idea of a jury is nothing like the courtroom jury or jury as the state intended. They like Poirot, did not rely on any sort of law or otherwise to form their "jury." The "Jury" system is simply a consensus; it puts the responsibility of one man's death on the shoulders
In the event that you carry out a wrongdoing, you have the privilege to a reasonable trial in which the court chooses whether the administration has the privilege to bolt you up. Be that as it may, on the off chance that you don't perpetrate a wrongdoing, the legislature has the privilege to "bolt" you up (in a jury room) without wanting to and compel you to render a choice in the matter of whether the administration has the privilege to bolt up another person who has carried out a wrongdoing. Is there some kind of problem with this photo? Jury obligation is basically group administration for individuals who haven't carried out a wrongdoing. Around a half million individuals a year in New York State alone are subjected to jury obligation.
Judicial selection is an intriguing topic as there are multiple ways that judges take their seat on the bench. The United States Constitution spells out how federal judges are selected and leaves it up to the individual states to establish their means for selecting judges. In federal courts, judges are appointed and it varies between appointment and election for state courts. The purpose of this paper is to examine the differences between appointments and elections (as well as the multiple types of elections) and to give an opinion as to which is the better alternative. Federal judges are appointed by the President of the United States and are confirmed on the advice and consent of the United States Senate.
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).
