In the last episodes of the podcast, we are introduced to various key statements that question the judicial system. In regards to combining a conclusion to make out of the facts that have been uncovered, we can conclude that the criminal justice system isn't fair to everyone. In the article “What ‘Serial’ Really Taught us”, it emphasizes on the terrible flaws in our justice system. It defines an individual who deigns to be a juror, and the one’s that try to wiggle out of jury duty. Many jurors are quick to hand down a guilty verdict if they have a hunch of a bad character on the defendant. The justice system isn’t fair to everyone, and it feels like it’s a game of Russian Roulette. Why is it that some individuals feel that the defendant is guilty, because they are standing in front of a court room? Why don’t we do a serious evaluation on a juror’s mental state about the alleged crime committed? When we go to jury duty, we are eliminated based on our own personal emotions towards a crime. Many individuals that have been jurors on high profile cases have admitted to conclude on a …show more content…
The justice system has three components that include police, courts, and corrections. The flaw in Adnan’s case began with the sloppy detective investigation work. It then proceeded with a clown circus of a court trial, and concluded with the confinement in prison system. There was DNA recovered from the scene of Hae’s body, but was never tested accordingly to trial. If the criminal justice system has to take two steps back to be in track, then can we really rely on a fair trial? The media rarely reports a defendant as having a good image, because they want to gain ratings to keep the audience tuned in. The media has a part to blame when it comes to fair trial. If the media portrays you as a bad person, then the chances of having a fair trial in court get
You’re woken up by police officers one morning. They say that they are taking you to be questioned for the murder of Hae Min Lee. That’s what happened to Adnan Syed, a young man sentenced to life in prison for murdering his ex-girlfriend. This would be any old hear-it-and-forget-it case, except that there were multiple problems with the case. The evidence that the State used was flawed. So, because there has not been any evidence presented that can prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, Adnan is not guilty.
The book “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is a book about twelve jurors who are trying to come to a unanimous decision about their case. One man stands alone while the others vote guilty without giving it a second thought. Throughout the book this man, the eighth juror, tries to provide a fair trial to the defendant by reviewing all the evidence. After reassessing all the evidence presented, it becomes clear that most of the men were swayed by each of their own personal experiences and prejudices. Not only was it a factor in their final decisions but it was the most influential variable when the arbitration for the defendant was finally decided.
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.
Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.
As one of the seven jury deliberations documented and recorded in the ABC News television series In the Jury Room the discussions of the jurors were able to be seen throughout the United States. A transcript was also created by ABC News for the public as well. The emotions and interactions of the jurors were now capable of being portrayed to anyone interested in the interworkings of jury deliberations. The first task,...
The first vote ended with eleven men voting guilty and one man not guilty. We soon learn that several of the men voted guilty since the boy had a rough background not because of the facts they were presented with. Although numerous jurors did make racist or prejudice comments, juror ten and juror three seemed to be especially judgmental of certain types of people. Juror three happened to be intolerant of young men and stereotyped them due to an incident that happened to his son. In addition, the third juror began to become somewhat emotional talking about his son, showing his past experience may cloud his judgment. Juror ten who considered all people from the slums “those people” was clearly prejudiced against people from a different social background. Also, Juror ten stated in the beginning of the play “You 're not going to tell us that we 're supposed to believe that kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I 've lived among 'em all my life. You can 't believe a word they say. I mean, they 're born liars.” Juror ten did not respect people from the slums and believed them to all act the same. As a result, Juror ten believed that listening to the facts of the case were pointless. For this reason, the tenth juror already knew how “those people” acted and knew for sure the boy was not innocent. Even juror four mentioned just how the slums are a “breeding ground
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.
Twelve Angry Men is a depiction of twelve jurors who deliberate over the verdict of a young defendant accused of murder, highlighting many key communications concepts discussed throughout the semester. One of these concepts was the perspective of a true consensus, the complete satisfaction of a decision by all parties attributed. An array of inferences were illustrated in the movie (some spawning collective inferences) as well as defiance among the jurors. Each of these concepts play a role endorsing, or emphasizing the other. We can analyze the final verdict of the jurors and establish if there was a true consensus affecting their decision. In turn, we can analyze the inferences during the deliberation and directly link how they affect the consensus (or lack thereof). Defiance among the jurors was also directly
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’.
To enforce voting to be mandatory , this will prompt more Americans to pay attention to the choices for their representatives. Mandating would stimulate the demand side, motivating voters to understand and acknowledge who they are voting for. Therefore , voting is to be a responsibility than a option.
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.
Throughout the years there has been limitless legal cases presented to the court systems. All cases are not the same. Some cases vary from decisions that are made by a single judge, while other cases decisions are made by a jury. As cases are presented they typically start off as disputes, misunderstandings, or failure to comply among other things. It is possible to settle some cases outside of the courts, but that does require understanding and cooperation by all parties involved. However, for those that are not so willing to settle out of court, they eventually visit the court system. The court system is not in existence to cause humiliation for anyone, but more so to offer a helping hand from a legal prospective. At the same time, the legal system is not to be abuse. or misused either.
...tood. This problem has persisted through many cases, clearly highlighting the lack of expertise of juries, and if they do not understand the process and basic rules, then they cannot be a reliable body in determining innocence. Jurors incapability of following evidence inevitably leads to guess work with jury’s finding defendants guilty because ‘he looked like he did it’ and ‘he looks like a nonce so he must of done it’. Moreover, cases have been reported of incredulous juries using absurd methods to ascertain a verdict, like in R v Young 1995, where a Ouija Board was used to determine if the defendant was guilty or not. It is clear that it would be better and far more effective to abolish the jury system, and leave the experts and qualified legal professionals to try defendants, as they understand the process and possess the expertise to make balanced decisions.
Adnan Syed, the claimed antagonist of this case is clearly innocent and even if he is not there is not enough physical, well investigated evidence, that would claim otherwise. Adnan is simply being accused by word of mouth and call logs that do not match up. The witness whose testimony does not even keep a consistent alibi. There are just so many things that do not fall into place for Adnan to be convicted of the murder of Hae Lee. There are many inconsistencies in each case presented, which is exactly why Adnan should be innocent. Someone should not be wrongly convicted over minor evidence. Even if he did murder Hae, more evidence should have been collected at the time to actually prove that he did do it. With the lack of evidence and lack
Many people believe jury trials aren’t fair because we are choosing 12 random people, who have small knowledge of the law, to decide if a person is guilty or not guilty. When in all honesty, the judge should be making those decisions because their job requires higher level thinking and they deal with cases everyday compared to being present for one case. Also jury trials are considered unjust because they obtain prejudice jurors, meaning that they have a pre-convinced answer on the case and don’t listen to actual facts or reason to determine which side of the case they agree with. In the film Runaway Jury, Rankin Fitch states “And this man doesn’t give a single, solitary droplet of s*** about the truth, justice, or your American way” which shows that jury trials can be unfair because no matter what the verdict of the case is their lives will continue on as before, whether there’s justice or