Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on the jury system
Arguments for the jury system
Jury system evaluated
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on the jury system
Arguments for the jury system
Jury system evaluated
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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.
When people think of a good judge they typically think of somebody who is fair, not bias and has some sort of experience. However, in today’s society, particularly in the United States, our judicial selection methods are not made to select judges on their ability to reason well and rule impartially (Carter and Burke, 6). On top of that, judges have no actual training before they become part of the judiciary. The only training they receive is in school when they are studying the law. Sometimes when they pursue an apprenticeship with a judge they also get a little bit more experience or insight into a judge’s job.
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.
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).
As the ideals of jurors being high and trustworthy are not always upheld due to the occasional bad juror, majority verdicts are a better technique of ensuring fair and just
Twelve Angry Men is in many ways a love letter to the American legal justice system. We find here eleven men, swayed to conclusions by prejudices, past experience, and short-sightedness, challenged by one man who holds himself and his peers to a higher standard of justice, demanding that this marginalized member of society be given his due process. We see the jurors struggle between the two, seemingly conflicting, purposes of a jury, to punish the guilty and to protect the innocent. It proves, however, that the logic of the American trial-by-jury system does work.
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.
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
The courts have failed to gain recognition and rejection of the practice of excluding blacks from the jury: First by the composition of the jury panels and second in the use of peremptory challenges to remove black people who reach the panels from which the jury pool is selected. The conclusion that race and racism, continue to be major influences in a jury selection process and in the outcome of juries seems beyond doubt, but Kennedy retains his commitment to anti-discrimination as the appropriate standard in jury selection as in all other aspects of the law enforcement process. Moreover, rejecting procedures that would ensure racial diversity in the jury pool is a complication because they are not focusing on what is more important which
Judicial selection is an intriguing topic as there are multiple ways that judges take their seat on the bench. The United States Constitution spells out how federal judges are selected and leaves it up to the individual states to establish their means for selecting judges. In federal courts, judges are appointed and it varies between appointment and election for state courts. The purpose of this paper is to examine the differences between appointments and elections (as well as the multiple types of elections) and to give an opinion as to which is the better alternative. Federal judges are appointed by the President of the United States and are confirmed on the advice and consent of the United States Senate.
The world is changing everyday but how can we help the world to become a better place. The best thing is to control what the courts put back on the streets. There is always talking about how a discussion was made in court because of politicians. The court system is becoming too political because of money.
It is commonly known that the our constitution and the amendments thereof, were enacted by our forefathers with the intentions to provide the American citizen with certain protections and guaranteed rights. However, in these contemporary times, there has been much public controversy with our judicial system as to whether or not that some juveniles who commit a crime are being treated differently than others who commit the same crime (Hawkins, Laub, Lauritsen, & Cothern, 2000, p. 2). Whereas, the American Sociological Association [ASA], (2007), article suggests that the differences of treatment and/or punishment imposed by the judicial system is discriminatory in nature (p.1). Furthermore, according to research conducted Sampson & Lauritsen,
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).
With every decision being amplified, there are extremely fine margins for errors. To prevent an unfair verdict, it is thus important for any underlying bias to be rooted out and hence I strongly support the abolishment of the jury system for cases involving the death penalty. Although the abolishment of the jury system has indeed brought about controversy, it is in the interest of fairness that the jury system is abolished. Juries are