ipl-logo

Should Jury Trial Still Be An Option Essay

585 Words3 Pages

Only 0.58% of cases get sent to trial by jury. A jury is a group of 12 men or women that have to make the decision in the case after listening to the whole case. They sit in a cramped box to try to reduce distractions. The reality is that they don't really pay attention and mess up the outcome a lot of times. Is the American Jury System Still a Good Idea? There are three main reasons jury trials should not still be an option: The jury can easily call you guilty by the way that you look, one person can just guess if they are guilty and then sway the whole jury and mess up the outcome, and people might say that you have a better chance of winning your case in a trial by jury but only 1 in 100 cases make it to that because of plea deals.

One reason why jury trials should not still be an option is the jury is they are randomly selected and they can easily call you guilty by the way that you look. Evidence supporting this is "We the jury find the defendant to be as guilty as he looks." This supports it because of the fact that the lead juror is saying that he finds him guilty by the way he looks, in another words he is discriminating him. This evidence explains why jury trials should not still be an option because half of the time the jury just gets to judge someone by the way that they look. …show more content…

There are .58% of criminal cases that get sent to trial by jury (Doc A). This evidence helps explain why jury trials should not still be an option because even though you might have a better chance with trial by jury but on a very small percentage of people actually are able to get tried by jury's. This pretty much means that you don't really have a trial by jury because of how many people won't get the chance for trial by

Show More
Related
515 Words | 3 Pages

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

Read More
1186 Words | 5 Pages

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.

Read More
1543 Words | 7 Pages

There are many criticisms surrounding, the jury system currently in use in our Australian legal system, these criticisms have recently been brought into the light over the past few years with many cases, such as the Casey Anthony case where a mother was acquitted of murdering her daughter as the jury stated, after less than 11 hours of deliberation, ‘there was not enough evidence’ when the forensic evidence was clearly stacked against her. This lack of competence by the jurors is a criticism that Lord Denning argued about in What Next in the Law? (1982) he debates that the selection of jurors is far too wide, resulting in jurors that are not competent to perform their task. Lord Denning suggested that the jury party should be selected in much the same process as magistrates are, with interviews and references required, although this initiative has several obvious problems, a more complicated selection process would be much more time-consuming and costly to the Australian tax payer; finding sufficient people willing to take part would prove incredibly difficult and a jury that is intelligent and educated can still be biased, and may be more likely to be so if drawn from a narrow social group. For a trial by jury case to be effective, no bias should exist in the jurors judgments, the jurors should understand clearly their role and key legal terms, and the jury system should represent the community as a whole and its standards and views whilst upholding the rights of the accused and society and remain cost and time effective.

Read More
960 Words | 4 Pages

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.

Read More
776 Words | 4 Pages

America gives any defendant a trial by judge, unless the judge allows a trial by jury. There are certain cases that need a better balance between a guilty verdict and the defendant’s freedom. Murder trials often receive 12 jurors to decide the defendant’s fate, while civil cases often have a judge making the verdict. The issue lies in citizens because they are unaware of the seriousness that presides in choosing another human’s future. Judges should be the only decision makers to choose a verdict which gives a defendant a fair trial in how they will use fact over feeling, they will be focused on deciding the verdict, and they are aware of the moral issues that may come out in a case.

Read More
1285 Words | 6 Pages

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.

Read More
1122 Words | 5 Pages

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,

Read More
661 Words | 3 Pages

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.

Read More
644 Words | 3 Pages

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.

Read More
842 Words | 4 Pages

Is the American Jury System still a Good Idea? In the American Judicial System today, there is a choice between trial by jury or bench trial. Trial by jury is used today by selecting jurors from pools of people who are eligible, adult American citizens. Trial by jury is often controversial because of how the jurors are not professionals whereas in a bench trial, a judge is highly educated in law (Doc B).

Read More
913 Words | 4 Pages

The American Jury System is a way for the people of the community to become involved in the judicial system. When court cases arise in some cases a jury will take place. The people on this jury make a decision on if the defendant is either guilty or innocent. This outcome has great power, and it's quite controversial if ordinary citizens should be able to make these big, influential decisions. The American Jury system should be kept because it is a staple of our democracy, allows citizens to be educated on the law, and produces fairer results for those who are accused.

Read More
647 Words | 3 Pages

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

Read More
736 Words | 3 Pages

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AMERICA'S JURY SYSTEM Eighteen out of one-hundred people are summoned for jury duty each year. Each jury member a normal person whose decisions are influenced by the world’s culture and affected by their busy schedules. Therefore, Americas jury systems are no longer effective in the twenty-first century, as a result of outside opinions, beliefs, and events taking place in our world. First, jury members in today's society don't have time to recall for jury duty. In fact, jury duty is often dreaded or avoided among Americans.

Read More
577 Words | 3 Pages

But in majority of the cases jurors are older. When the juror is younger they were more likely to find a defendant not guilty compared to the older juror. The evidence that would be compelling to me as a juror is when a small child is involved. There are so many cases now that shows how people are abusing the children and even killing them. While they are in a fit of rage.

Read More
1472 Words | 6 Pages

They have to decide important matters, verdicts, without giving reasons about their decision (Hostettler, 2004); they can nullify a verdict even if the evidence is overwhelming (Joyce, 2013). Furthermore, juries are too expensive, prolong the length of the trial (Davies, 2015) and the guilty can walk free, while the innocent is convicted (Joyce, 2013). In addition, jurors should be representative of society, but it is not

Read More

More about Should Jury Trial Still Be An Option Essay

Related Topics

Open Document