More handpicked essays just for you.
Sentencing in the criminal justice system
Sentencing in the criminal justice system
The american jury system history
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The American jury system is a time-honored tradition. It is the pinnacle of freedom and democracy – suspects are innocent until proven guilty, and they can only be proven guilty through the careful examination, cross-examination, and analysis of a case by lawyers, who present their case to a group of twelve equal citizens. Or is it? Jury trials are not the only type of trial in America, the other being a “bench trial” or trial by judge. Immediately, this sounds absurd – who would favor a bench trial over a jury? Any sane person would want the chance to be acquitted, and a jury is much more likely to have “mercy” than a single, all-powerful judge. However, there is more to this story than meets the eye. Bench trials have many advantages – they’re …show more content…
Every person, through his or her experiences, will obtain bias simply because it’s a natural human reaction. What the jury trial system does, however, is help minimize bias. An example of this is Document F, an excerpt from Mark Twain’s “Roughing It” – a homicide has been committed, and lawyers are looking for people to be part of a jury to try a suspect. They lawyers ask everyone they interview if they have heard of the event, if they have read about the event, talked about the event, or formed any opinions on the event. If the prospective jurors answer yes to any of the questions, they are dismissed. Even though “Roughing It” is fiction, it is an excellent rendition of the quality of juror looked for in a jury for every trial. Another example of the fairness of jury trials is the Casey Anthony trial of 2008 (Document D). Here, Casey Anthony, whom many believed had committed the heinous crime of killing her own daughter, was acquitted of all charges. In this trial, the evidence was overwhelmingly against Anthony. However, it was also clearly inconclusive, and it was also clear that the prosecution had made assumptions in their case. This showed the grit of the jury as they saw through the assumptions and made the right decision. The last evidence of the fairness of the jury is the statistics regarding the rate of acquitted cases versus convicted cases (Document A). Here, the data shows that 12.15% of cases brought before …show more content…
In fact, they have many benefits that seem to catapult them ahead of jury trials. An example of a benefit is the acquittal rate - which sits at a staggering 43.9%. This means that nearly 44% of all potential inmates never reach the prison system, which, in turn, saves a massive amount of money (Document A). Another benefit is the speediness of trials by judge. Judges are some of the most learned and intelligent people in America – their credentials go back to years of law school and decades of experience in the legal system (Document B). So far, these benefits seem to be outweighing the costs of a jury. After all, a jury is slow, has potential for failure, is biased, and is made up of fallible beings with no court experience, right? The answer to that question is yes – but there’s a catch. A jury is also made up of the best candidates chosen by intelligent lawyers with years of experience. A jury also “elevates ordinary citizens into positions of self governance” (Document C). A jury is fair, compassionate, and made up of twelve unique and valid opinions. A jury is made up of people who are ordinary, and that is what makes them extraordinary. If one was to ask “would one rather be tried by their peers, or by a judge who gets paid to do this and has to sift through thousands of cases per year” what would be one’s choice? In essence, a jury is costly, and has all the potential for downfall, yet it has proven over and over again that
In the Jury system mini Q document A, the second chart shows that in around 2300 jury trials only around 300 people are Acquitted, while in Bench trials about a third of the people are acquitted. This shows that the jury system works a far larger percentage of the time while the bench trial lets a lot of people go. In the Jury system mini Q document C, John Gastil says “the framers of the United states Constitution viewed the jury system as a critically important feature.” This shows that the framers had originally intended for there to be a trial by jury for every case in order for democracy to shine through and be the leading form of government that our country
Beverly, I am also a proponent of the United States developing a system of professional jurors. I also believe it would cut down on biased opinions and help rebuild people’s faith in our criminal justice system. In addition to the points you made, I believe professional jurors also would alleviate the process of the prosecution and defense counsel being able to stack the jury pool with individuals favorable to them. Although the U.S. is a country that is for the people, many citizens don’t want to set on a panel of jurors to determine the fate of an individual they do not know (Weigman, 2011). The main reasons for this is because, it causes them to be pulled away from their livelihoods, which for many encompasses work and family. Lastly,
I believe that the jury system is an unfair system due to the limitations which are included during jury selection. Many professionals and groups of people are exempt from jury service: police or anyone dealing with the law (law student, lawyer, judges, assessors), anyone dealing in medicine (doctors, nurses), small or large business owners Pregnant women or women in general can claim special considerations, along with; teachers, accountants, ministers of religion, or generally anyone with a professional/education. So due to this, people who serve on a jury can be unemployed or part of a less educated and informed strata of society.
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.
In America, every individual has the right to a fair trial, but how fair is the trial? When an individual is on trial, his or her life is on the line, which is decided by twelve strangers. However, who is to say that these individuals take their role seriously and are going to think critically about the case? Unfortunately, there is no way to monitor the true intentions of these individuals and what they feel or believe. In the movie, Twelve Angry Men, out of the twelve jurors’ only one was willing to make a stance against the others, even though the evidence seemed plausible against the defendant. Nevertheless, the justice system is crucial; however, it is needs be reformed.
At trial, your life is in the palms of strangers who decide your fate to walk free or be sentenced and charged with a crime. Juries and judges are the main components of trials and differ at both the state and federal level. A respectable citizen selected for jury duty can determine whether the evidence presented was doubtfully valid enough to convict someone without full knowledge of the criminal justice system or the elements of a trial. In this paper, juries and their powers will be analyzed, relevant cases pertaining to jury nullification will be expanded and evaluated, the media’s part on juries discretion, and finally the instructions judges give or may not include for juries in the court. Introduction Juries are a vital object to the legal system and are prioritized as the most democratic element in our society, aside from voting, in our society today.
In the United States, jury trials are an important part of our court system. We rely heavily on the jury to decide the fate of the accused. We don’t give a second thought to having a jury trial now, but they were not always the ‘norm’.
They are the impartial third-party whose responsibility is to deliver a verdict for the accused based on the evidence presented during trial. They balance the rights of society to a great extent as members of the community are involved. This links the legal system with the community and ensures that the system is operating fairly and reflecting the standards and values of society. A trial by jury also ensures the victim’s rights to a fair trial. However, they do not balance the rights of the offender as they can be biased or not under. In the News.com.au article ‘Judge or jury? Your life depends on this decision’ (14 November 2013), Ian Lloyd, QC, revealed that “juries are swayed by many different factors.” These factors include race, ethnicity, physical appearance and religious beliefs. A recent study also found that juries are influenced by where the accused sits in the courtroom. They found that a jury is most likely to give a “guilty” verdict if the accused sits behind a glass dock (ABC News, 5 November 2014). Juries also tend to be influenced by their emotions; hence preventing them from having an objective view. According to the Sydney Morning Herald article ‘Court verdicts: More found innocent if no jury involved’ (23 November 2013), 55.4 per cent of defendants in judge-alone trials were acquitted of all charges compared with 29 per cent in jury trials between 1993 and 2011. Professor Mark Findlay from the University of Sydney said that this is because “judges were less likely to be guided by their emotions.” Juries balance the rights of victims and society to a great extent. However, they are ineffective in balancing the rights of the offender as juries can be biased which violate the offender’s rights to have a fair
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.
Otto, A. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1994). The Biasing Impact Of Pretrial Publicity On Juror Judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 18(4), 453-469.
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.
From conception in the Magna Carta 1215, juries have become a sacred constitutional right in the UK’s justice system, with the independence of the jury from the judge established in the R v. Bushel’s case 1670. Although viewed by some as a bothersome and an unwelcomed duty, by others it is perceived to be a prized and inalienable right, and as Lord Devlin comments ‘ trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution : it is the lamp that shows freedom lives.’ It is arguable that juries bring a ‘unique legitimacy’ to the judicial process, but recently it seems that their abolition may be the next step forward for the UK in modernising and making the judicial system more effective. Many argue that jurors lack the expertise and knowledge to make informed verdicts, along with views that external forces are now influencing juries more heavily, especially after the emergence of the internet and the heavy presence it now has on our lives. Yet, corruption within the jury system is also internal, in that professionals and academics may ‘steamroll’ others during deliberations about the case. These factors, coupled with the exorbitant costs that come along with jury trials creates a solid case for the abolition of juries. On the other hand though, the jury system carries many loyal supporters who fear its abolition may be detrimental to society. Academics and professionals such as John Morris QC state that; 'it may well not be the perfect machine, but it is a system that has stood the test of time.’ Juries ensure fair-practice within the courtroom, and although controversial, they have the power to rule on moral and social grounds, rather than just legal pre...
The book Acquittal by Richard Gabriel states, “juries are the best judges in the system. They are not elected, they don't have the high-powered microscope of appellate review or the stern, disapproving-schoolmarm precedent looking over their shoulder, and they have no interest in the outcome of the case.” For this reason, we can come to the conclusion that the use of juries in a trial is the best for all involved in the legal system. While juries, “are the best judges in the system”, lawyers, jury consultants, and jury scientists are the reasons they are viewed this way. It is their job to make sure that not only their client, but everyone has a fair and unbiased trial.Making sure that “the best judges in the system” are fair and unbiased takes a lot of planning, research, and effort. You must research the jurors, understand how they think, what their morals are, and how they would view this case. “It is a constructed reality, cobbled together by shifting memories of witnesses, attorney arguments, legal instructions, personal experiences, and beliefs of jurors.”(Gabriel
So the first reading that convinced me having a jury system was a bad idea was document F. This was a passage from a book called Roughing It by Mark Twain. He talks about a murder that happened in Virginia and how a prominent banker and valued citizen was denied to be on the case because he knew about the case beforehand. This circulated in my head and did not make sense to me, the jury would rather be full of unvalued citizens who have no
One of the strengths the movie has been the filming itself. There were barely any cuts in the movie and it was mostly shot in one scene so it made you feel that you were part of the scene. Another strength in the movie was the anonymity that was given to the jurors. This help me realise that these were just the “general public” and that there are many jury’s that are exactly or similar to this. Another strength that the movie showed was that it helped me realise the potential flaw in our justice system. While the accused is still given a right to a fair trial, when you are in a society where prejudice against minorities is considered a norm, it becomes hard looking at things fairly not because you don’t want to but because most of the society is already doing it. For example, in the movie most of the jurors were quick to accuse the boy guilty without deliberation. Another strength is how this movie showed how influential we are to each other. For example, the group dynamic of economic status was big because while the people on the higher economic status looked at the boy with more prejudice, one of the jurors who was