Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
How has judicial diversity been encouraged
Advantages of diversity in the justice system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
How has judicial diversity been encouraged
Advantages of diversity in the justice system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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.
However, the Court also noted that larger juries might be necessary in certain cases to ensure a fair trial. Despite the Court's rulings, some critics argue that a six-person jury is not large enough to provide an adequate representation of the community and that it may be more susceptible to biases and errors. However, others argue that smaller juries can be more efficient and can still provide a fair trial with proper safeguards and procedures in place. This is an important part of our lives because it helps ensure that people accused of crimes get a fair trial. Having a jury of a certain size can affect the outcome of a trial.
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.
Americans have control over the legislative and the executive branch of government by being able to elect leaders and think up an idea for a law. Even though the people do not get to elect judges in the judicial branch, they get to be a part of it themselves. The jury system encourages citizens to show their citizenship. Furthermore, it turns ordinary people into self-governors (Doc C). By people being apart of the jury system they are “promoting self-governance and civic participation” while they decide if a person is guilty or not guilty (Doc C).
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.
“When you go into court you are putting your fate into the hands of twelve people who weren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty” quoted by a man whose name is Norm Crosby. People who get called in for jury duty who are biased or unfair on the case have a valid reasoning to be dismissed from sitting in on a jury duty. Although some people don’t always take advantage of this opportunity, they are stuck in attending the jury duty and is unfair because they are biased to the situation. This ties into the short play called “Twelve Angry Men” written by Reginald Rose, because there were jurors who sat in on the case who were biased to the setting and continued to make an appearance at the jury duty. “Twelve Angry Men”, Rose demonstrates the danger
Traditionally the court has decided that a jury size of a criminal case shall be comprised of twelve members. Although a specific number is not identified within the Sixth Amendment the court in 1898 declared that under constitutional law, it is a requirement that all juries are made up of exactly twelve people. The set number of a jury can date all the way back to the 1300’s were a trial was always concluded with twelve members of the jury (Linder, last visited Mar 30, 2018). The tradition of a twelve person jury was first analyzed and concluded in the case of Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970).
In Twelve Angry Men, Juror 1(Foreman) says, “Anyway this friend of my uncle’s was on a jury once, about ten years ago- a case just like this one..... They let him off. Reasonable doubt. And do y’know, about eight years later they found out that he’d actually done it, anyway.” By allowing different people onto the jury, they have the ability to give assumptions and information about other cases which can sway and harm the verdict.
The american jury system is one of the most controversial and outdated things in the american court system. The american jury system works as a way for a convicted person on trial to have their fate decided by a group of 12 random people of the community. From the time this system was put into place in the court system it has been a highly debated topic for the people of america for a couple reasons. Lots of ordinary people in the community will talk about how they dread when they are picked for jury duty, jury duty makes the people who are chosen to take a day off work and lose a whole day's pay and pretty much waste a person's time. The jury system has been around since the 1400’s(timeline), it first started in england and like most stuff in the constitution it was based off the english ideas like jury duty.
A jury is a body of typically twelve people, who give a verdict in a legal case on the basis of evidence presented to them in court. The jurors independently review the evidence that is presented by either prosecuting or defending barristers, or solicitor advocates and they are required to come to a decision whether the accused is guilty or not guilty. To become a juror you must be between the ages of 18-70, be registered as someone who can vote in either the parliamentary or local authority elections, a resident in the UK, the channel islands or the Isle of Man for at least 5 years since their 13th birthday and not subject to any of the disqualifications. Jurors also have to undergo background checks.
Imagine getting that one dreaded letter in the mail, calling you to do the one thing you didn’t plan the week before your wedding, JURY DUTY. Reginald Rose wrote the play Twelve Angry Men for a television drama after he sat on a jury. The characters in this play are identified not by names but by numbers. Twelve men are confined to a deliberation room after the trial of a 19-year-old boy accused of stabbing and killing his father. Twelve Angry Men illustrates the many dangers of the jury system like, a biased jury, being left with questions, and feeling inconvenienced by jury duty.
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.
Science fiction is commonly associated with the thought of existence of life on another planet or the creation of flying cars. These ideas of science fiction have to change over time as there are always new technology and ideas being created, but where did it all start? Many critics not Frankenstein by Mary Shelley as one of the first science fiction novels which was written in 1818. One critique written by Sherry Ginn, a professor at Wingate University shares her reasoning for why someone could attempt to classify Frankenstein as science, science fiction, or as an autobiography. Ginn shares some historic information providing insight to the life of Mary Shelley and how her experience helped the development of the story.
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,