The trial judge refused to instruct the jury that aggressors lose their right to self-defense unless they meet certain conditions. It is unnecessary to decide
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.
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.
While this idea may seem logical, some people still argue that the court system should be based on facts and not emotion. However, like stated before, a jury works best if it takes into consideration the actual human side of the case, just like how juries ruled against slave laws in the 1800s. Summary As the case defending jury nullification draws to an end, it is evident that this legal practice is truly benefiting the American court system: Not only does jury nullification prevent unjust laws being enforced, but it also provides more reasonable punishments to criminals and controls the corruption happening in the courtroom.
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.
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.
Over the years, a plethora of court cases have caused Americans to wonder: is our jury system indeed as wondrous as it is conceived to be? To explain, the jury system is the concept of giving the defendant in a trial the option of either having a bench trial, one where a judge alone reaches a verdict, or a trial by jury, one where a group of twelve ordinary citizens is chosen to reach a verdict on the case. One may wonder why a dozen everyday denizens are being endowed with the absolute power over a possibly life or death decision in the life of a neighbor that is unknown to them, but the framers of the United States Constitution believed that this was the most democratic option in making sure that justice is properly served. Explaining further,
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.
Louise Erdrich’s The Round House, is a powerful story that follows a thirteen year old boy, Joe, on his path to finding justice for his mother. The novel is written in a retrospective narrative, allowing the reader to gain insight as to how Joe felt while he was searching for justice, as well as how he felt years later. The novel is set 1988, a time when Native Americans were not receiving the justice they deserved for the crimes that were committed against them. In the novel, Joe’s mom, Geraldine, was raped by a white man, but it’s a very slippery slope because law enforcement is unsure whether the crime happened on the reservation or on white land.
Juror 3 vs Juror 8: In Comparison and Contrast Juror 3, played by Lee J. Cobb and Juror 8, played by Henry Fonda, are both men of business, the former a literal businessman and the latter an architect, respectively, but differ in their personalities and sympathies that go along with them. Juror 3 and Juror 8 both share careers that deal either fully in business, or partially in business. Juror 3 is a businessman, as well as a father, as mentioned during his anecdote of his embarrassment after witnessing his nine year-old son run away from a fight, ending the story with his son punching him in the jaw at the age of 16. Juror 8 is an architect by trade, and must deal with some form of business during the architectural process. Since both
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was one of the most influential thinkers during the Enlightenment in eighteenth century Europe. His first major philosophical work, A Discourse on the Sciences and Arts, was the winning response to an essay contest conducted by the Academy of Dijon in 1750. In this work, Rousseau argues that the progression of the sciences and arts has caused the corruption of virtue and morality. This discourse won Rousseau fame and recognition, and it laid much of the philosophical groundwork for a second, longer work, The Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. The second discourse did not win the Academy’s prize, but like the first, it was widely read and further solidified Rousseau’s place as a significant intellectual figure.
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
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,
