Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on the jury system
Essays on the jury system
Evaluating the jury system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essays on the jury system
Two options are presented to a jury in a court of law: guilty, or non-guilty. In any case, there exists a third option no legal advisor is allowed to tell a jury. Despite the evidence presented, if a jury feels it is morally incorrect to prosecute a defendant, they have the power to acquit them. In order to maintain a free justice system, it is important for a jury to have the power to nullify the law under specific circumstances, much like in the case of John Peter Zenger.
The foreign concept to many, jury nullification, is an often overlooked right of a juror, but has a huge impact on the outcome of a trial, as demonstrated in the case of John Peter Zenger. Jury Nullification exists not as a law in the justice system, but as a logical consequence
…show more content…
Zenger, a German immigrant and aspiring news publicist, printed The New York Weekly Journal. Zenger published one issue that, “harshly pointed out the actions of the corrupt royal governor, William S. Cosby” (UShistory.org 1). More specifically, he had accused Cosby of rigging an election in his favor. As the governor disagreed with Zenger’s accusations, he charged him with the crime of libel, and sought to find the other writers whom Zenger refused to reveal. In a blind fit of anger, “Cosby responded to these frustrations by proclaiming a reward of fifty pounds for the discovery of the authors of the libels and by issuing an order that Zenger's newspapers be publicly burned by the common hangman” (Linder 1). After arresting Zenger, Cosby insisted that he had committed crimes of libel against the government. Cosby would also foresee it that Zenger would not win the trial, by stacking the jury with biased individuals. This is one of the ways Cosby abused his power as the governor in order to refuse fairness upon Zenger. Alexander Hamilton, an attorney at the time, was assigned to defend Zenger against the seemingl unbeatable Cosby. In a stirring appeal to the jury, “Hamilton pleaded for his new client's release. …show more content…
As Hamilton explains, “I shall therefore only observe to you that as the facts or words in the information are confessed, the only thing that can come in question before you is whether the words as set forth in the information make a libel. And that is a matter of law, no doubt, and which you may leave to the Court” (Linder 1). These words convey that the crime of libel was being wrongfully applied to Zenger, therefore proving the importance of having a conscious voice that is the jury. In a state of rage, Cosby exclaims, “The great pains Mr. Hamilton has taken to show how little regard juries are to pay to the opinion of judges, and his insisting so much upon the conduct of some judges in trials of this kind, is done no doubt with a design that you should take but very little notice of what I might say upon this occasion” (Linder 1). He mainly takes issue with the jury’s deliberate disregard for his orders, and demands they return with a guilty verdict. In spite of this, the Jurors understood that the correct thing to do was to acquit Zenger. The elation sparked by the trial was heard across the nation, and word spread of the unusual verdict. This was a stepping stone in freedom in America, as, “Concern about likely jury nullification discouraged prosecutions, and press freedom in America began to blossom” (Linder 1). The trial’s outcome
The article also mentions Patterson’s previous trial where “Circuit Judge Horton, presiding, took judicial notice of incipient mob action to lynch defendants and attorneys by ordering soldiers in open court to shoot if necessary to preserve the peace” (Linder). On March 25, 1931, Victoria Price, a known prostitute, and Ruby Bates accused nine Negroes of raping them on a train in Northern Alabama. The trial took place in Scottsboro, amid much anti-black sentiment. An all-white jury sentenced eight of the nine to death, despite the fact that one was blind and one could hardly walk on his own.... ... middle of paper ...
Jurors will thoroughly inspect and weigh over the evidence provided, and process any and all possible scenarios through the elements of crime. If the evidence does not support the prosecutor 's argument and the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must pronounce the defendant not guilty. If questionable or irrelevant evidence is included in the criminal proceeding, it is the duty of the prosecutor or defendant 's counsel to object and insist that the evidence be excluded by the presiding
John Peter Zenger committed libel in a newspaper, stating blunt truths about the government’s faults. William Cosby didn’t like this at all, so he had him tried. The verdict was made quickly: not guilty. The case became vital to the lives of the American colonies by giving them the First Amendment: Freedom of the Press. It had a large impact on the lives of the citizens by allowing them to say whatever they wanted about the government in a newspaper or other form of public writing. John Peter Zenger is now known today for giving us this freedom.
They weigh the evidence and apply the law. In the court system, criminal law is interpreted by a jury who are seen as expressing the sense of justice of ordinary men and women. Juries date back to the Middle Ages in England, and while membership, role, and importance have changed throughout the ages, they were part of the system of England’s Common Law. The purpose of the jury system was to ensure the civil rights of the ordinary citizen. It is important to remember that at the time, ordinary people had few rights.
Henry Drummond’s tactfulness allows him to convince a partisan jury of the absurdity of putting a man on trial for simply expressing an unpopular viewpoint. Drummond shows
Smith, William (1997) “Useful or Just Plain Unfair? The Debate Over Peremptories; Lawyers, Judges Spllit Over the Value of Jury Selection Method” The Legal Intelligencer, April 23: pg 1.
While talking to the police, the women accused all of the black men of raping them. These women were known prostitutes of the area, but their word was still taken over the black men who were accused. Twelve days later, the trial took place. There were many witnesses that held bias towards the black men. One acquaintance of the women was a white lady who refused to support the lies that were coming out of the white women's mouths.
Throughout history, the power to decide one’s fate has been given to those with the utmost ethical and moral beliefs. However, often times there are flaws in the system and the miscarriage of justice, where the innocent are deemed guilty, occur. Those sentenced with wrongful convictions affect the lives of their loved ones and tarnish the society’s reputation. In The Crucible, by Arthur Miller, Danforth is most responsible for the tragedy in Salem because he allows his personal characteristics to take precedence over his professional duty. Danforth allows the trials to continue under fake pretense and therefore justice is not brought forward.
William Henry Drummond is a renowned, successful, and acclaimed lawyer. A reaction to his name could be extremely varied, depending on whom you’d ask in the 1925 world. To the majority of the people in Hillsboro, for example, Drummond is perceived as a “vicious, godless man,” who will undoubtedly lose the trial to the beloved Matthew Harrison Brady. The results however, showed otherwise. Countless impressions of him are changed by the end of the trial. Drummond has many positive character traits which influenced his comportment in the “Monkey Trial”. He is a respectful, resourceful, and dignified man, and these traits prove to be accurate through the length of the trial.
...ing him, and the expectation was that there would be a well-publicized trial rather than a brief in which Ray admitted his guilt and was sentenced.” (Clark 240)
The jury plays a crucial role in the courts of trial. They are an integral part in the Australian justice system. The jury system brings ordinary people into the courts everyday to judge whether a case is guilty or innocent. The role of the jury varies, depending on the different cases. In Australia, the court is ran by an adversary system. In this system “..individual litigants play a central part, initiating court action and largely determining the issues in dispute” (Ellis 2013, p. 133). In this essay I will be discussing the role of the jury system and how some believe the jury is one of the most important institutions in ensuring that Australia has an effective legal system, while others disagree. I will evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of a jury system.
A jury is a panel of citizens, selected randomly from the electoral role, whose job it is to determine guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented. The Jury Act 1977 (NSW) stipulates the purpose of juries and some of the legal aspects, such as verdicts and the right of the defence and prosecution to challenge jurors. The jury system is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society as members of the community ultimately decide whether the person is guilty or innocent. The creation of the Jury Amendment Act 2006 (NSW) enabled the criminal trial process to better represent the standards of society as it allowed majority verdicts of 11-1 or 10-2, which also allowed the courts to be more resource efficient. Majority verdicts still ensure that a just outcome is reached as they are only used if there is a hung jury and there has been considerable deliberation. However, the role of the media is often criticized in relation to ensuring that the jurors remain unbiased as highlighted in the media article “Independent Juries” (SMH, 2001), and the wide reporting of R v Gittany 2013 supports the arguments raised in the media article. Hence, the jury system is moderately effective in reflecting the moral and ethical standards of society, as it resource efficient and achieves just outcomes, but the influence of the media reduces the effectiveness.
Some of the people in the world always ask themselves this question when in the court room “ WHY DID OUR FOUNDING FATHERS EXPECT CITIZEN JURIES TO JUDGE OUR LAWS AS WELL AS THE GUILT OF THE INDIVIDUAL ?” Well the answer is really simple its Because: "If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen's safeguard of liberty." (1788) (2 Elliots Debates, 94, Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267) "Jury nullification of law", as it is sometimes called, is a traditional American right defended by the Founding Fathers. Those Patriots intended the jury serve as one of the tests a law must pass before it assumes enough popular authority to be enforced. Thus the Constitution provides five separate tribunals with veto power -- representatives, senate, executive, judges and jury -- that each enactment of law must pass before it gains the authority to punish those who choose to violate it.
As indicated by Duhaime 's Law , Jury Nullification implies the startling force of a jury to issue in opposition to the law as connected to the demonstrated truths. Jury Nullification is lawful in the United States. Jury is a gathering of residents in which they are called members of the jury. They will arbitrarily specifically and pick the jury in which they will be given the ability to choose. Jury invalidation happens when a jury returns a decision of "Not Guilty" regardless of its conviction that the respondent is liable of the infringement charged (Linder,2001). The jury as a result invalidates a law that it accepts is either corrupt or wrongly connected to the litigant whose destiny they accused of choosing (Linder,2001). Jury invalidation is optional act, in which isn 't a legitimately authorized capacity of the jury. At the point when managing jury invalidation it is essential to chat on the historical backdrop of American utilize, the advantages and disadvantages, also practice the force of the jury. Jury invalidation occurred in 1735 which was the most celebrated case, it additionally was practices in the mid 1800s, mid 1800s, and of the 1930 in which numerous juries rehearsed invalidation.
The outcome of a trial, whether it be civil or criminal, can have a tremendous impact on the lives of the parties involved. It is the wish of any reasonable person that the perpetrator of an evil faces the penalties of his or her actions while the innocent be awarded a favorable outcome, whatever that entails. This is the outcome that any honest legal decision-marker strives to achieve. If the all the relevant facts were readily available and their authenticity assured, then a judge or jury could confidently reach a verdict knowing that the outcome is consistent with the actual events that took place. This is not to imply that knowing the facts assures a just ruling, but only that no confusion exists as to what actually took place and therefore the verdict reflects what actually took place. In a great number of cases the choice between innocence and guilt is not clear cut, yet a decision must be reached nevertheless. It is often the case that the trier must make a decision based upon an incomplete and unsatisfactory picture of events. The judge must also acknowledge the possibility that the plaintiff or defendant is lying in order to have his or her way. How does a judge reach a verdict when there is no way he can know, based on the facts, who is guilty and who is innocent? These are questions of tremendous importance. The answer to these questions has a deep impact in the shaping of our society. Questions regarding the presumptions of innocence, the standards of proof and who is to carry the burden of proof will be addressed. Emphasis will be place upon cases in which the rules we are about to discuss are overturned by some other principle.