The American Jury system is a judicial process that has been revered as being one of the key practices that ensure the liberties that the United States holds dear. The founding fathers considered it vital to ensuring a fair trial and it has continued to be seen as such. This system isn’t perfect, but it’s still an incredibly valuable tool for democracy, if used well. The American jury system, when used correctly, engages citizens with their local government, creates a wide distribution of power, and ensures impartial rulings. To start with, one of the most important ways to prevent the abuse of power in any system is to keep it out of the hands of the few and put it into the hands of the many. This is exactly what the American jury system …show more content…
With a jury trial that power is divided between twelve citizens that could come from many different walks of life. This becomes a safeguard against one person acting rashly, without enough information, or with biases. In Document E on the right hand side of the page there is a comment with the caption, “We, the jury, find the defendant to be as guilty as he looks” (Doc E). It seems far more of a danger that a judge should be operating under that principle. If a judge were to rule in these ways that would just be that and the defendant would have to appeal in order to change whatever wrongful decision this judge made. This wastes the defendant’s money, tax payer money, and everyone’s time, not mentioning the intensely disruptive nature that ruling would have in the defendant’s life. In Document C John Gastil and Phil Weiser wrote, “ Jury service [has] a special role of ensuring popular…[oversight in] the judicial process” ( Doc C). Jury service allows everyday people, the exact people who may require fair trials in the future, to have a say over what happens in a courtroom and have the power to weigh evidence and arguments for themselves. Gastil and Weiser later said that, “In theory, elections play a similar role in ensuring, “the people’s
Seymour Wishman was a former defense lawyer and prosecutor, and the author of "Anatomy of a Jury," the novel "Nothing Personal" and a memoir "Confessions of a Criminal Lawyer." "Anatomy of a Jury" is Seymour Wishman's third book about the criminal justice system and those who participate in it. He is a known writer and very highly respected "person of the law." Many believe that the purpose of this book is to put you in the shoes of not only the defendant but into the shoes of the prosecutor, the judge, the defense lawyer and above all the jury. He did not want to prove a point to anyone or set out a specific message. He simply wanted to show and explain to his readers how the jury system really works. Instead of writing a book solely on the facts on how a jury system works, Wishman decides to include a story so it is easier and more interesting for his readers to follow along with.
The jury system originated in England and has so far failed in cases (all too common) when defendants are wrongfully prosecuted or convicted of crimes which they did not commit. In societies without a jury system, panels of judges act as decision makers.
In the movie Runaway Jury the attorneys go beyond the bounds of decency to collect information about potential jurors for a murder case. The typical process that the United States follows when finding potential jurors is called Vior Dire. Through this process attorneys can select or reject jurors depending on the answers to their Vior Dire, or their questionnaire. The questionnaire generally asks about backgrounds and biases the juror may have. I believe this is the fair way to pick and chose jurors and the way Rankin Fitch went about it is irresponsible and invasive. Despite the questionnaires filled out, Fitch, bugged the defense attorney with a microphone to ensure he would pick a jury that would side with him and his team. I find this to be extremely unlawful and unethical. When picking a jury the objective is to get a bias subject that can listen to both sides. To select individuals that seem unbiased already defeats the purpose of the jury as a whole. Ultimately, I think that a jury should be selected just using the Vior Dire process. It allows for an unbiased choice and any further digging or research on a person seems to be overdoing a simple process. If an attorney
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 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
Mention the pros and cons of our jury system and possible alternatives of it. Also, identify the group dynamics of the jury members
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.
Jury Bias With jury bias we examined that the perspective taking, victim impact statements and race of the victim had no main effects with ps > 0.26 and no significant interactions with ps > 0.64. Jury Race The race of the jury was divided into white and non-white participants. An ANOVA was then run with perspective taking, victim impact statements, and race of the victim as the between-participants factors to test against empathy felt for the defendant, for the victim, for the victim’s significant others. White participants. We observed that there was a main effect with the race of the jury and the empathy felt by the jury for the victim.
First, when individuals are appointed for a jury, several individuals will do anything to not be selected for the trial. For instance, my father has conveyed he was indisposed or he could not afford to miss work. Moreover, most individuals do not perceive being a juror as an honor being as a citizen, instead they see it as a burden. A substantial influence on this position is the remuneration, because individuals are missing work to serve. On average, an individual who is selected to be a juror makes about 30 to 40 dollars a day, a fraction of when he or she is working. For this
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’.
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.
Today, juries are much more diverse. Men, women, and people from diverse backgrounds are called to jury duty. Although the origin of the jury system is not clear, history has shown that William the Conqueror from Normandy introduced a similar system to England around 1066 CE (Judiciary of Vermont 1). After the American Revolutionary War, the jury system became the American ideal of justice. This essay will explore the history of the American jury system and illustrate how it has evolved over the course of the American history.
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.
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.