Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
O. J. Simpson murder case
The roles of the criminal court system in america
The oj simpson trial summary
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
O. J. Simpson murder case
The roles of the criminal court system in america
The oj simpson trial summary
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Crucible and 12 Angry Men are both, excellent examples of instances when justice is fragile. One individual’s decision could be life or death in these cases. The only person who knows if they are guilty or not for certain is the suspect, unless there is factual proof. During jury duty, the jurors could just be focused on getting the job done so they can leave and do their evening activities. For the suspect, it was his fate.
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.
But in this case, no’”. A jury is supposed to be composed of people who hold unbiased, moderate views on capital punishment. Having the jury being unfairly prejudiced towards the criminals is setting up for an increasingly severe punishment- the death penalty. Capote’s inclusion of this quote portrays the blatant flaws in the justice system, ranging from the strict M’Naghten rule to a biased
A jury is not trained to decide someone’s fate, which is why a judge, as a trained lawyer, should choose the
A majority of citizens see jury duty as some sort of punishment, which is made clear by popular television shows and other forms of media, which greatly diminishes the value of the jury system. In cases where the media plays a major role, such as the Casey Anthony case, jurors can be endangered after a verdict is made (Document D, 295). A woman was told that Anthony was found not guilty, and she said that Anthony would not be accepted back into the community and would have to move away. Jurors of the case who came to the verdict would also be in danger of being ostracized by the community for their unfavorable decision; if these citizens had known about the outcry that would follow the verdict, they most likely wouldn’t have served on the jury at all. A total of 5,082 trials were jury trials in one year, which was a small fraction of all cases tried in the same year (Document A, 289).
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.
Our jury system stretches all the way back in England hundreds of years ago. Whenever a crime was committed in a community, a judge and his or her jury would come together to put the accused on trial. The judge served more as the legal expert over the trial. However, the jury was made up of twelve men who lived in the area that the crime was committed. These ordinary citizens were the ones that decided the verdict of the case.
At the beginning of the story, juror 7 brought up an idea to vote if the defendant is guilty, which gets the jurors nowhere. He says, "Let’s vote now." Soon after he wonders if they could “all go home" (page 13). Juror number 7 had no intention of testing witnesses because he was hastily trying to jump to the conclusion and ignorant of the other possibilities that could have arisen. Juror 7 also demanded that "this better be fast” because he’s “got tickets to an event."
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.
If it was selective to only a certain group of people or the same twelve Jurors all the time the ending vote for guilty or not guilty would most likely be similar because they would bond through the other cases that they have done together. Which, is unfair for the rest of America if all
Some jurors may be racist, prejudiced, or discriminatory toward the defendant, influencing their decision-making and the overall outcome of the defendant’s sentence. Fundamentally, a trial must consist of only fair and equal behaviour and if not this, may influence the whole trial process; this also undermines the integrity of the legal system. The Ministry of Justice in the UK conducted
Even if the jurors do not realize their biases they may still be prejudiced. Once the jury is chosen the media’s impact on the case is not finished. Without the media a juror would have to make a decision based on what was presented to them in court, but with media a few passionate people who do not know the entire story could broadcast something that sways a jurors’ decision more than what was presented in the court of law. According to research jurors are not the only ones susceptible to the media coverage, as studies have shown that highly publicized cases can sway a judge’s ruling. Elected judges have a tendency to lay down harsher sentencings than if the case is less
The play “Twelve Angry Men” shows that relying on twelve people for a life sentencing situation could be bad for the justice system. The justice system could be bad in at least three ways by people being biased, fighting for the wrong side, and people having no common sense. Usually others opinions cause the justice system to be worse than it has to be. A danger of relying on twelve individuals in a court system means that there are some that would be biased about the case. Juror 5 was biased for relating this case to himself because he was from the slums and so was the boy on trial.
In a New York City, an 18-year-old male from a slum is on a trial claiming that he is responsible for his father death by stabbing him After both sides has finished their closing argument in the trial, the judge asks the jury to decide whether the boy is guilty or not The judge informs the jury decided the boy is guilty, he will face a death sentence as a result of this trial The jurors went into the private room to discuss about this case. At the first vote, all jurors vote guilty apart from Juror 8 (Henry Fonda), he was the only one who voted “Note Guilty” Juror 8 told other jurors that they should discuss about this case before they put a boy into a death sentence