Since last August 20, these 12 people have been listening and watching all the evidence against the police officer. They had until January 7 to complete all procedures related to this case. Usually a grand jury meets once a week, however in this case the meetings occurred more frequently.
Today bring forth the case of Michael Brown vs. Darren Wilson firstly state the argument in the case as being unjust, unfair ruling for justice of his family and the community. From the New York Times ( Michael Brown 's family attorney says grand jury proceeding is unfair). By Paul Cassel, In his opposition, the Grand Jury took too long to make its decision while the family was waiting for the verdict without reason. That is not a proper use of the grand jury decision, which made it harder to take the objections seriously. Which also criticized the parallel federal investigation for taking too long.
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
A grand jury is composed of twelve people, to determine if there is enough evidence to send an accused individual to trial. Although they may not determine if the accused individual is guilty or not, they can issue a formal document saying there is enough evidence for the prosecutor to take the accused to trial also known as an indictment. According to, Texas Politics Today, “a grand jury may return indictments simply because the district attorney asks them to.” Which in the end is not fair, because the jury may believe that there is not enough sufficient evidence, but because they feel pressured they issue an indictment.
Defending the Rights of the US Citizens: The Advantages of Jury Nullification. By: Bradyn Fix Jury nullification has been a fundamental aspect of the United States court system since the 1800s, but how does it make a difference in today's justice system? The process of jury nullification occurs when a jury in a criminal case returns a not-guilty verdict even though they believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. This means that the jury knows the defendant has committed a crime but still chooses to let them go.
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.
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
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.
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.
During the Boston Bombing trial, the court system retrieved three thousand citizens of Boston to be surveyed. It took those months to get the twelve adults they needed which is a really long time. In those three months where they were choosing a jury, they could have already completed the trial and the verdict would have been reached much quicker. Instead of waiting months for the jury to be selected, they could have rolled with one or two judges, three at max, to decide on the case. Juror selection is a long and complicated process that requires patience, money, and time.
I believe that the federal justice system is just and unbiased. The federal justice system has guidelines and rules to keep them from using power improperly and targeting groups of people based on their race. This is talked about in article “Is the Criminal Justice System Racist”. There are statistics given pertaining to the prison sentences given to African Americans, prosecution during a felony trial, and crime/prison rates.
"Jury System; a system in which the verdict in a legal case is decided by a jury on the basis of evidence submitted to it in court. " Starting at eighteen, you become eligible for jury duty – something many have to do as one of our civic duties, however, it wasn 't always this way. As far as historians know, the jury was established by William the Conqueror who brought it to England from Normandy. However, this system that he brought was nothing more than a system that had witnesses who knew of the matter in question to tell the court what they knew. It 's a known fact that our courts and laws have changed and evolved since when we first created them, otherwise lynching and stoning would still be acceptable punishments for varying crimes.
In the film, “Twelve Angry Men” they show the role of the jury in finding the verdict for the court trial. In the US Constitution under the sixth amendment, this helps establish the procedures and right in criminal prosecutions and also gives some protections to the criminal. It is important to have an impartial jury and to be well informed on the cases. In the film the jury is tasked with finding the verdict of a young teen charged with the murder of his father. They have heard and seen the evidence involved and now they must come up with a verdict.
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,
