While our Justice System is better than most countries it still has its flaws that hurts the american people in the long run. Our sixth amendment states that a person can't be tried without a jury, so someone decides your fate, and everyone can make mistakes. Another issue in our justice system is double jeopardy. Also another flaw is how police has a higher voice in the courtroom.
Our sixth amendment states that someone can't be tried without a Jury. But is having a jury a good thing? In a case there are usually two vertices innocent and guilty, So there a fifty, fifty chance someone can win or lose, we are humans we do make mistakes. In the book How to Kill a Mockingbird with the court case with Tom Robinson, there is significant evidence that the Ewells were lying and Tom was innocent but the Jury convicted him anyway. On a Christmas eve Ezekiel Gilbert hired Lenora Ivie Frago as an escort, but he believed it was payment for sexual intercourse. When she refused to Gilbert shot her in the neck and she died several month later. His jury acquitted him because his attorney. It is disgusting that we give people the power to decides another human's fate.
…show more content…
To protect people from being harassed from the justice system, we have double jeopardy, which states you can't be tried again for the same case or crime.
While this was put into place to protect us it also does not ensure the justice some people lose. In the Book How to Kill a MockingBird Tom Robinson was found guilty, so because of double jeopardy they can not redo the case. On August 28, 1955 a 14 year old boy named Emmett Till was beaten up by two white men because he spoke to a 21 year old white woman and her husband and her brother in law went and killed him. When they went to court they were acquitted and later admitted they killed Till. Therefore as much double jeopardy protects us from being harassed by the courts it also denies people the justice they
deserve. Our Police are supposed to protect us from criminals be a figure to look up to. But with the power that comes with possession comes poeple who abuses the power for their own greedy ways. In a trial, a police statement can cause the trail to swing from innocent to guilty. Police can also Manipulate and destroy evidence that links to a trail. A New York state trooper was convicted for six years for falsifying fingerprint evidence for at least 30 cases. There are many innocent people that spent time behind bars because police manipulated for hid evidence. In conclusion our justice system is very flawed. We have other humans hold such power to decides another person's fate. As much double jeopardy protects us from being harassed by the court it also denies justice to people who deserves it. Also Police are treated like higher authorities but at the end of the day they are still humans with greed in their hearts that can manipulate the defendants outcome.
The Sixth Amendment states that the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury. However, Dexter was in jail for 25 years since 1982, and the appeal was still in process to the Supreme Court. Also, based on the jury selection on exhibit B, document one, there were only white people in the final jury, and African Americans were struck peremptory by prosecution. Dexter did not have an impartial jury because white people may favor his opposed side due to the different race. According to Batson v. Kentucky, the USSC also determined that peremptory challenges used to exclude jurors on the basis of race could be challenged by the defendant. It was not fair for Dexter to not have the same race people as him in the jury. In addition, the Sixth Amendment also says that both federal and state courts must provide a lawyer if the accused cannot afford to hire one. Even though Dexter did have an attorney, his attorney was not organized and prepared. The adequate attorney was not as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment because he admitted that “he has not been to the crime scene, or viewed the crime scene photographs…has not viewed the prosecution’s witness list.” He had not done anything that could help defend Dexter. He didn't even call witnesses in the court to help Dexter. Strickland v. Washington also supports this because the court upheld the defendant’s conviction that his rights had been violated when his lawyer did not provide enough evidence to avoid the death
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.
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
Courtroom Assignment Post 1 We have a packed courthouse here in Maycomb county today folks, for the Tom Robinson trial. Tom Robinson is on trial for rape charges. He is a black male in his late 20’s. The layer who will be defending Tom is Atticus Finch.
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’.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galations 3:28
The United States enshrines in its constitution a Fifth Amendment, a law which protects one from being placed twice in jeopardy under the same crime. To this regard, one cannot be placed in double jeopardy by the same government. However, there are certain circumstances that can make one to be placed under double jeopardy without violating the Act. It is important to note that the federal and the state governments are two sovereigns. In this case therefore, a person can be tried for the same crime by the two separate sovereigns under their respective laws (Merriam, 2008). The same case happens for two states. Each state is a sovereign and therefore can try a person for the same crime. This normally happens for serious crimes such as murder and or drug trafficking.
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
...l increase dramatically. Also, in particularly due to the media, we often forget this rule “innocent until proven guilty.” With the way society deals with criminal injustice today, our media often rules a verdict before the justice system has. Whether through ignorance or not, many people pick up the morning paper or read off of the internet and allow their minds to soak up the information being fed to them, without stopping to question what they are being told. When they read about a person being held trial for murder, their thoughts are of how they will be punished, not if they should be punished. Other factors such as racism, discrimination, and being bias come into play as well. There is often too many questions left unasked and too many questions left unanswered. The American justice system is unreliable and unjust and far too many innocent beings are punished.
The problem of judicial corruption in United States is immense. The Sixth Amendment in the United States Bill of Rights refers to the right to a speedy, fair and public trial. Unfortunately, our judicial system does not always maintain these rights. The United States judicial system is very corrupt and most of our country’s citizens do not know how corrupt it actually is. When thinking about the judicial system, words that come to mind are justice, morality, and fairness. Sadly, these words are not accurate descriptions of this system. Correct depictions of today’s judicial system are corruption, rigged courts, extortion, and phony trials. Our legal system does not bring truth or justice to our courtrooms. Overcoming this corruption is not easy for the average citizen or anyone who is not in on the “game”.
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.
The criminal justice system, like any system designed by human beings, clearly has its flaws. Ben Whishaw. There have been numerous occasions that have shown the flaws of our justice system from convicting a person of a crime in which they did not commit, to the wrongful execution of an innocent person. Although the United States justice system was created to serve and protect the American people, being fair to all, it continues to show evidence of the flaws within the system. The United States Department of Justice has a statement that describes the mission: To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans(DOJ).
Arguments For and Against Juries The right to a trial by jury is a tradition that goes right to the 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 one's 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.
We must look at the facts and decide whether the American Jury System is still a good idea. How much is it costing us to pay for each individual to serve on the jury and does this out way the possible benefits that a jury system has in the court of law? The other important factor and feasible benefit of a bench trial is that there’s hardly any room for error. No one is perfect, but it’s a lot less likely that a judge would make a vital mistake impacting the rest of someone’s life versus twelve arbitrary citizens from the community. The United States court system shouldn’t allow any incompetency, unsupported bias, or negligence in the evaluation of cases. We must choose the system that is best for our increasing complex and refining society.