In fact, those 12 people are locked up in a room, so they make a judgement as quick as it is possible to get out of the court. Also, I was thinking what if the jurors have personal prejudices against the defendant or what if the jurors consider a defendant based on
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.
Firstly, the opinion of one person can make up the opinion of another person. Humans naturally follow a leader, so one person’s choice can
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
The fragility of it is that you can be put on a jury full of people who don’t care about your fate, and through unlucky means be accused of something that you didn’t do. People decide your faith, and you can’t expect those on the jury to react in a completely unbiased way. Juror seven likewise, does not care about the fate of the boy, dismissing the case in a blink of an eye, with his only desire was to attend the baseball game. Clearly unfit for jury duty, he was willing to sacrifice the life of a potentially innocent boy. It can’t be known whether a jury will consist of biased or unbiased people, those convicted have no control of such matters.
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.
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.
Another reason citizens question juries is that they have bias from personal experience or the media. The defendant and the prosecution criticize the jury system because the actual jurors may not understand the situation from any point of view because they come from different lifestyles (Doc E). The American jury system is not a good idea anymore because juries are not experts in law, they have bias, and are not “a jury of peers”. Because jurors are not experts in law, they are subject to be
“Other arguments against majority verdicts include that they compromise the criminal standard of proof of "beyond a reasonable doubt", given that at least one juror has a doubt; create a greater risk of convicting the innocent, leading to miscarriages of justice; and reduce public confidence in jury verdicts” (SMH 2005). However, a number of positives that occur after and during the trial largely outweigh the few issues that arise. There are far less hung juries. More than 80 cases resulted in hung juries during 2005. Majority verdicts as opposed to unanimous verdicts to better keep the integrity of the trial by helping prevent juror bribery or intimidation; it may also help stop rogue or stealth jurors (LY Lawyers 2017).
This was determined from way back when America was first being created. Originally the U.S was control by the British but one of the main reasons for our independences from them other than the fact that the U.S. did not like their high taxes but also was because the jurors and their rights. According to the video “Annenberg Classroom: Juries” when a judge did not like the juries verdicts they were fine and threatened to have their nose cut off. American wanted their judicial to be fair and equal for all. However, they are wrong in the fact that all citizens should need to serve on the jury because people will misuse this power and will not truly understand their effect on the case and more importantly the people live on trail.
A flawed jury is what makes for an unfair trial. Juries are a crucial piece of the puzzle which helps create the system we have today, one where it needs to be represented in the right way that makes the justice system an improved one. The judicial system is one where the jury needs to accurately represent the community that the accused resides in, achieving this can impact the community first hand, make it easier to protect the defendant from unfair sentencing, and promote public confidence in the justice system which is what lots of people distrust and lack in. The citizens in a community are the ones that get impacted from the actions of accused in the first hand which is why they need to be accurately shown in the jury.
Climate change is essentially a significant and long-term change for the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods of time. Climate change is a change in the regular weather patterns such as more or fewer severe weather events. (Greenfleet, 2011) The history of the scientific discovery of climate change began in the early 19th century when ice ages and other natural changes in paleoclimate were first suspected and the natural greenhouse gases affect identified. In the late 19th century, scientist first argued that human emissions of greenhouse gases could change the climate.
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.
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
