Arguments For and Against Juries The right to a trial by jury is a tradition that goes right to the heart of the British legal system. It is a right fiercely fought for, and fiercely defended at those times when its powers have been seen to be under threat - as those backing reforms are finding. The tradition of being "tried by a jury of ones peers" probably has its origins in Anglo Saxon custom, which dictated that an accused man could be acquitted if enough people came forward to swear his innocence. Trial by jury was first enshrined in law in what has been seen as the world's first proclamation of human rights - the Magna Carter. The document, decreed in 1215 by King John after a rebellion by his barons, stated that a "freeman shall not be... imprisoned... unless by the judgement of his peers". The right to trial by jury was finally established absolutely in the legal system following the trial of William Penn in 1670. A jury of 12 randomly chosen citizens of London refused to convict the Quaker of "leading a dissident form of worship", despite being directed to by the judge and subjected to imprisonment and starvation in a bid to force their hand. The latest government proposals are seen by some as a direct attack on the traditions established in the Magna Carta and confirmed in the Penn trial. The government wants some defendants to lose the right to choose trial by jury over magistrates' hearing. Supporters say reform is practical for an overburdened modern legal system. The proposed changes affect an Act of 1855 allowing some crimes to be tried by magistrates instead of a higher court if the defendant agreed. The act was ... ... middle of paper ... ...arch and policy literature (Horowitz et al., 1996; Penrod & Heuer, 1997). Indeed, in 1998 the Home Office invited commentary on whether an alternative to the traditional jury system was appropriate for cases of serious fraud. This stemmed specifically from the proposition that lay persons may not be competent to evaluate particularly complex evidence, and was certainly fuelled by acquittals in well-publicised cases, such as that involving the Maxwells in the UK (see e.g. Doran & Jackson, 1997). In this article, research regarding individual juror decisions (not jury decision making) is introduced in respect of two questions. Should trial by jury be waived for so-called complex cases? And are there circumstances under which pre-trial publicity might so 'contaminate' the minds of jurors that a fair trial is not possible?
The American Jury system has been around for quite some time. It was the original idea that the framers of the constitution had wanted to have implemented as a means of trying people for their illegal acts, or for civil disputes. The jury system has stood the test of time as being very effective and useful for the justice system. Now it has come into question as to if the jury system is still the best method for trials. In the justice system there are two forms of trials, one being the standard jury trial, where 12 random members of society come together to decide the outcome of something. The other option would be to have a bench trial. In a bench trial, the judge is the only one deciding the fate of the accused. While both methods are viable
...8). However, if it was them who had been accused of a crime, surely they would be very happy to have a jury, instead of one person deciding their fate.
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.
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.
The right to have trial by jury is an easy and simple right letting someone to be able to choose to have their fate be decide by a group of people with having different opinions from different minds letting them have a better chance of finding out the truth, because people have different perspectives in what they see. Which is also a very important right to the freedom we have and to our country. In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Which defines as if someone gets charged over twenty dollars, then they’re able to ask for a jury to hear their side of the case before they lose their money and once the jury makes their decision they can not change it. This Amendment is important to our freedom because into the decision of the Farmers while they were writing on the Bill of Rights they thought it would only be fair to have an equal court system.
American citizens accused of crimes have a constitutional right to a speedy public trial by an impartial jury, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with witnesses against them, to bring witnesses in their favor, and to have the assistance of legal counsel. On April 27, 1861, Lincoln decided that such constitutional...
A lot of countries use a jury system. Some are very different and some are very similar. Some countries don't have a jury system. Some countries have a jury system, but don't use it. Others have jury systems, but they are different than the one we know here in the US.
The criminal trial process is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society to a great extent. For the law to be effective, the criminal trial process must reflect what is accepted by society to be a breach of moral and ethical conduct and the extent to which protections are granted to the victims, the offenders and the community. For these reasons, the criminal trial process is effectively able to achieve this in the areas of the adversary system, the system of appeals, legal aid and the jury system.
right to a speedy trial by public and of a jury of their peers (Abadinsky, 2008). All subjects or
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...
In order to identify the advantages and disadvantage of the tribunal system and the court system it is necessary to firstly identify what they are, their purpose and then what the advantages and disadvantages of these two systems of dispute resolution are.
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
The American Court System is an important part of American history and one of the many assets that makes America stand out from other countries. It thrives for justice through its structured and organized court systems. The structures and organizations are widely influenced by both the State and U.S Constitution. The courts have important characters that used their knowledge and roles to aim for equality and justice. These court systems have been influenced since the beginning of the United State of America. Today, these systems and law continue to change and adapt in order to keep and protect the peoples’ rights.
Mention the pros and cons of our jury system and possible alternatives of it. Also, identify the group dynamics of the jury members
United States, you have the right to a trial by a jury of your peers,