ipl-logo

The Pros And Cons Of Jury Selection

943 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: View of sixth amendment

To start off, the jury is an important role when it comes to going to trial. The Sixth Amendment gives defendants the right to an impartial trial. A jury trial usually consists of six to twelve personnel within the community. There is a process called voir dire in which the selected jury goes through a series of question to determine their mindset and to ensure that they aren’t favoring one side over the other. Both the prosecution and defense team have a chance to select and question the jury. Even though both sides choose and question the jury, a psychologists are hired most of the time to consult alongside with them. According to Wachtel (2016), the role of the consultant which is more than likely a psychologist is to look for nonverbal indications such as facial expressions, body movement and other gestures that might question the integrity of that person. Choosing the wrong jury member could have a negative impact on the case. First, there are concepts that are used by psychologist when involved in jury selectin. Observational learning concept could be used in the jury selection which means learning a new behavior by observing a person. Psychologist could use this process because their job is to observe the person in order to learn their behavior and to determine the mindset to sit …show more content…

They all have a common issue that they have to deal with in one way or another. As far as law enforcement and psychology, safety issues may be a problem. Psychologists can consult on interrogations with suspects from different countries. Misunderstanding of the culture or behavior could have a negative impact on the case and could possibly place someone in harm’s way. To eliminate this from happening, there are guidelines such as Ethical Standard 2.01(b), Boundaries of Competence for psychologists to

Show More
Related
252 Words | 2 Pages

The witness impacts the jury decision on many cases because the way they are. In the Trayvon Martin case Rachel Jeantel, the witness seemed like an illiterate hood person. The witness was on the stand for a couple hours. The defense would question her and agitate her to prove the jury that Mr. Martin was a hoodlum.

Read More
515 Words | 3 Pages

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.

Read More
704 Words | 3 Pages

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.

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

With twelve people judging a case, it is more likely that someone will have the sense and maturity to decide to put aside their own beliefs and only go with the facts. Thus, having a jury gives a better safety guard for the defendant. Yes, the media will often over-publicize a case, causing a possible bias in the jurors, but in the end in cases such as the one in Document D, the jury was able to put aside the media and do what is

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
773 Words | 4 Pages

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

Read More
393 Words | 2 Pages

According to Webster's dictionary, a juror takes an oath of allegiance to serve on a jury to determine if a defendant is innocent or guilty of a particular crime. Jurors are supposed to remain unbiased and open minded when dealing with a defendant, however some jurors do not. In the play 12 angry men written by Reginald Rose jurors 10 and 3 are examples of bad jurors because they both show heavy bias against the defendant. In the book 12 angry men jurors play a key role in whether the defendant lives.

Read More
842 Words | 4 Pages

The jury system has cases where jurors are influenced by the media because it is almost impossible to find someone who has not heard about the case and formed a personal opinion already (Doc F). In widely known cases, jurors may have been influenced by outsiders and the media indirectly and directly. For example, in the People vs. O.J. Simpson case, the infamous decision might have been made because of the jurors discussing the case with people who they are not suppose to discuss it with. An argument can be made that jurors are specifically instructed not to discuss the case or read anything about it, but there is no way to verify that the jurors are actually following this rule. Jurors can also have personal bias because they are very different from the defendant or prosecution (Doc E).

Read More
444 Words | 2 Pages

The Juries protect people’s rights and liberties through the teamwork with a judge. By working together in great effort they come down to one reasonable idea. Responsibility for justice mostly lies upon honesty and fairness of juries therefore people must rely on jurors for their own protection. Furthermore, a movie ‘’Twelve Angry Men” is great example of juror’s absolute honesty and sense of fairness in order to determine defendant committed a crime or not. The juries justify a defendant because of well clarified facts and the evidence of a murder that they find out by hard team working and their serious attitude toward a

Read More
747 Words | 3 Pages

Do you empathize with the defendant? Do you feel bad for her and the events that have taken place in her life? Nine times out of ten a jury member will answer yes to one if not all of these questions allowing him/her to be influenced by the woman’s

Read More
554 Words | 3 Pages

Criminal Justice Psychologist The psychologist is a vital asset to the criminal justice system. The psychologist can examine victims, police officials and various witnesses thus making them ethically obligated to make the right decisions and evaluations. This essay will discuss the roles of psychologist as they work within the criminal justice system. I will Identify and describe the psychologists’ roles within the criminal justice system as it pertains to the applied scientist, the basic scientist, the policy evaluator, and the advocate.

Read More
210 Words | 1 Pages

Trial jury is smaller in size compared to the grand jury, trial jury usually consists of 6-12 people. Trial jury, which is usually the type of jury we see televised, is usually open to the public, very strict, and controlled by a judge. Defendants usually are allowed to be present, as well as testify, and call witnesses if they choose to do so. A trial usually has no say so regarding the trial they are working on, usually the only thing they are allowed to do, is deliberate and come up with a final decision, also known as the verdict. The trial jury rules either in favor of the plaintiff or defendant.

Read More
571 Words | 3 Pages

This remarkable courthouse only hosted approximately seven trials in its first year and since then has dropped even lower (Dzur, 2013). The early 20th century was the last time a jury was considered the normal process for dealing with criminal cases, and now the plea deal is king (Dzur, 2013). Simple fact is, today juries hear only a very few cases across the nation (Dzur, 2013). High-ranking members working in the justice system fear that the competence of a jury today is declining with the scientific evidence that is now available (Dzur, 2013). The statistics seem to support this fear.

Read More
1472 Words | 6 Pages

In this paragraph, the advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury will be discussed. The main advantages are that juries introduce community values into the legal process and can influence the system (Joyce, 2013); they can achieve a sense of equity and fairness without enforcing unjust laws; in addition, juries are independent and neutral (Davies, 2015). Moreover, they guarantee participation from the public in a democratic institution (Hostettler, 2004), and represent the population thanks to the randomness with which jurors are decided (Davies, 2015). On the other hand, the most important disadvantages are that jurors have no prior contact with the courts, no training (Hostettler, 2004) and therefore they lack knowledge of law, courtroom proceedings (Joyce, 2013), and lack of ability to understand the legal directions (Thomas, 2010). Moreover, they must face evidence which is highly technical (Hostettler, 2004).

Read More

More about The Pros And Cons Of Jury Selection

Related Topics

Open Document