More handpicked essays just for you.
Arguments for and against used to critique the jury system
Essay on the jury system
The american jury system history
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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.
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.
Foreman (Juror 1): He is an assistant football coach at a High School. Elected as the foreman of the jury, he has the responsibility to keep the jury process organized. Although he is not particularly bright, he is dogged. Initially, he struggled to keep up with his authority. Eventually, he managed to weight to his authority as the foreman as well as his opinions.
Members of the jury, you are essentially deciding the future of England. Will it be run under a constitution or absolutism? Do you believe it is possible that someone could be above the law? That they do not have to pay for their actions? That they are special because their actions have no repercussions?
1.Intro The jury system for Australia is not a fair system. There are many fault with the structure of how it is decided and how is picked. The jury should be 100% fair and not biased in any way, if this is not the case a criminal or civil offences could be charged for the wrong thing. Some reasons why the jury system is not a fair system is because Ordinary people may not understand complex legal technicalities, some people are exempt from serving, the jury is not a true cross-section of society and also It is difficult for people to remain completely impartial, especially if they are influenced by the media coverage of the trial.
Then the case may be dismissed or the trial may start all over again (LC). The origins of the jury system are from the 11th-century England. The concept was that people were entitled to a jury of their peers. At the time, a peer meant someone who knew the accused, someone who lived in the neighborhood and knew who was a liar and who
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
Citizen Required To Serve? Jury a group of citizens sworn to give a verdict in a legal case on the basis of evidence submitted to them in court. Being able to serve on a jury is an absolute privilege to do for some and one thing that makes this country very different and unique from others. Serving on a jury should not be required for citizens. Some people believe serving on a jury should be a requirement for every citizen.
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?
It does not matter if you are male or female, white or black, religious or not, everyone gets a chance to be a juror as long as one is a citizen of the country. Although it may seem that the views and opinions of a wide range of society can be included in the decision-making process is a good concept, however, there are consequences along with it, and that leads to the biggest flaw in the jury system - the lack of experience and knowledge in the court. It is difficult for ordinary citizens to understand a very subdivided focus of controversy in professional cases. Most jury members have limited opinions on the case due to the lack of acknowledging and understanding pieces of evidence. A jury may make its decision because one party's lawyer is more persuasive than the other rather than to make decisions based on the evidence presented, not to mention the whole purpose of the jury system is to decide if one side is innocent or guilty based on pure objective perspectives of bystanders.
Imagine getting that one dreaded letter in the mail, calling you to do the one thing you didn’t plan the week before your wedding, JURY DUTY. Reginald Rose wrote the play Twelve Angry Men for a television drama after he sat on a jury. The characters in this play are identified not by names but by numbers. Twelve men are confined to a deliberation room after the trial of a 19-year-old boy accused of stabbing and killing his father. Twelve Angry Men illustrates the many dangers of the jury system like, a biased jury, being left with questions, and feeling inconvenienced by jury duty.
Capital punishment, or the death penalty, is a legal process in which a person is put to death as a punishment for a crime by the government of a nation. The United States is in the minority group of nations that uses the death penalty. There are thirty-three states that allow capital punishment and seventeen states that abolished it (Death Penalty Information Center). The morality of the death penalty has been debated for many years. Some people want capital punishment to be abolished due to how it can cost a lot more than life imprisonment without parole, how they think it is immoral to kill, and how innocent people can be put to death.
The justice system that relies on twelve individuals reaching a life-or-death decision has many complications and dangers. The play Twelve Angry Men, by Reiginald Rose, illustrates the dangers of a justice system that relies on twelve people reaching a life-or-death decision because people are biased, they think of a jury system as an inconvenience, and many people aren’t as intelligent as others. The first reason why Reiginald illustrates dangers is because people can be biased or they can stereotype the defendant. The Jurors in Twelve Angry Men relate to this because a few of them were biased and several of them stereotyped the defendant for being from the slums. The defendant in this play was a 19 year old kid from the slums.
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.
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,
