Recommended: Aspects of common law
Ernie Law Zink 3° US History 15 September 2016 DBQ Essay When the delegates met in 1787 they aimed to fix the national government. The previous governmental charter, the Articles of Confederation, failed because it was just too weak and wasn’t getting the job done. Under the Articles of Confederation, there was no court system, no chief executive, and there was no particular way for the central government to force states to pay their taxes. By creating the Constitution, it would build a stronger central government and would be able to hold the nation together.
“How did the Constitution Guard Against Tyranny” In 1787, the delegate decided to meet up in Philadelphia to write the Constitution. The Constitution decided to guard against tyranny in many different ways, which was the Federalism, Separation of Powers, Check and Balance, and Small and Large States. The first guard against tyranny was the Federalism, which was the Central and State Government. The reason Federalism is protected from tyranny is because they want to make sure that the state and national governments have power but not too much, where they can come to powerful (Document A)
Justice Cromwell and Chief Justice McLachlin perceived this case through a distinctive approach as compared to the majority. As an alternative of viewing the trial as a whole, they decided to concentrate on the functions of the jury which include, representing the community, presenting a protective barrier against unfair/harsh laws, and performing as informative means of the criminal justice system (Pinder, 2015). Without these factors, the trial would be deemed as unfair as the jury is viewed as the foundation of the trial and every matter follows accordingly (2015 SCC 28, para. 24). Cromwell and McLachlin stated the only means of exactly determining if the province abided by section 11(d) of the Charter is to evaluate the Province’s conduct considering the situation and how they tried to recognize the problem – if any. The Justices concluded there was an appropriate link relating the Province’s manner and the absence of diverse representation of the jury as stated in the Charter (Pinder,
The jury system originated in England hundreds of years ago. The colonists brought the jury system from England to the United States. In 1733, John Zenger, a printer, printed a newspaper critical for the British Government. His attorney convinced the jury to be in favor for Zenger because his criticisms were true. After this trial, it gave ordinary citizens the freedom of speech and the power to go against the king.
The meaning of Article III was left open to interpretation. In 1789, shortly after the Constitution was ratified, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, which established the federal court system. Congress created a Supreme Court, three circuit courts, and 13 district court, one district court for each of the 13 states. The Constitution was not specific about the number of justices that could be appointed to the Supreme Court.
After fighting for so long and hard to secure independence from the British rule, the young United States of America needed to come together to form a strong nation. Having literally sacrificed blood, sweat, and tears to free themselves from the tyrannical oppression of an over-powered central government, the people wanted to ensure that they would not be trading one for another. There needed to exist a means to effect a measure of equality and security for the newly founded country. The Constitution aimed to do just that.
They had set twenty seven amendments in place to protect the people 's rights. In the Constitution, it gives the people the right to a fair, speedy trial by a non biased jury. “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law.. ”(US Constitution) This means it is your right as an American to have a fair trial by people that have no biases against you in the state that the crime was committed in.
Have you ever wondered what a court room means to most people? Well, to most it’s an equalizer for any man or woman present, but there is a flaw to this system. This flaw is bias, the amount of evidence, and witnesses. Today we will talk of whether or not Tom Robinson had received a constitutional trial. If you don’t know “To Kill a Mocking Bird” by Harper Lee, is a telling of age story, about a girl nicknamed “Scout” growing up, while slowly unlocking the secrets of her home town and the secrets of life.
Our rejection of simple-majority jury decisions, I believe, was deeply-rooted. In the 1700’s, Sir William Blackstone made his opinion clear that a jury trial was the most “transcendent privilege” any person can hope for. 3 Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 379 (1768). That no state can take away your property or liberty without the “unanimous consent of twelve of his neighbors and equals,” was a great comfort to Blackstone, as it should be to all of us. Id. John Adams believed that a unanimous jury is the thing that “preserves the rights of mankind.”
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.
The justiciar was the kings own representative. This made it easier for all subjects to get justice. Secondly, Henry brought increasing pressure to bear on his royal officials in the countryside, the sheriffs through the exchequer. The court was strengthened and the reforms first introduced by Henry I were re-implemented. For the first time a set of financial records and the pipe rolls were now kept.
It all began with a guy named Titus Oates who claimed that the Catholics were plotting to kill King Charles II. This lead to the death of a multitude of Catholics. Later they figured out that he was lying the whole time in in order to try to get his father to have the thrown (8th Amendment). Oates was then convicted of perjury and sentenced to a life of imprisonment. Only three days out of each year was he allowed out of his cell, two days to be placed in the stocks and one day to be whipped (8th Amendment).
The justice system has always been the heart of America. But like this country, it has many faults. Prejudice has played a major role in the shaping of this system. In the 1930’s the way a courtroom was set up was completely different from how it looks to day. In the book To Kill A MockingBird, Harper Lee shows just how different it is.
In such a democracy, the people who were in higher ranks could get away easily with crimes and wrongful acts because most of the jurors in the room were of the same ranks as the accused so he would receive favor from
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,
