Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The history of jury
Arguments for jury system
Arguments for the jury system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The history of jury
History of the Jury
Juries are legal systems that have been used for over a thousand years. At the beginning juries were only used to provide local knowledge and information, and instead they acted more as a witness than decision makers. As time went on, in the fifteenth century, juries were independent assessors which they also assumed their modern role as deciders of fact. When the jury became a jury system, its origins was brought over by England, which was when the pilgrims in 1920 established a jury system in the New World.
When the pilgrims arrived in the New World, after three years they codified the colony’s laws. December 17, 1623, the colony officials said “that all criminal facts, and also matters of trespasse and debts between man and man should be tried by the verdict of twelve honest men to be impaneled by authority
…show more content…
in forme of a jury upon their oath.” This was a form of English common law for the pilgrims when they arrived in the New World. When the first American Colony jury trial was held in 1630, they accused a man named John Billington. Billington was accused for murdering a fellow Mayflower colonist named John Newcomin. The jury found the defendant guilty of “willful murder by plain and notorious evidence,” and Billington was executed by being hung. In the same year, Puritans joined the Pilgrims which now is currently known as Massachusetts. The governing body (General Court) grew when the Massachusetts Bay Colony grew. Now the court had legislative and judicial powers. Lawyer-clergyman Nathaniel Ward created the Body of Liberties. The Body of Liberties is a document that was published in 1641 which contained 100 liberties intended for guidance use for the General Court of the time period. In Article 29 of the Body of Liberties it reads that under the Liberties “free men” were able to serve two juries in a year. These jurors were picked “by the freemen of the Town where they dwell.” “In all actions at law it shall be the libertie of the plaintiff and defendant by mutual consent to choose whether they will be tryed by the Bensh or a Jurie, unless it be where the law upon just reason hath otherwise determined. The like libertie shall be granted to all persons in Criminal cases.” If a person was chosen to perform juror service but refused to do so, there were to be consequences. Even in the beginning of the seventeenth century, under the Colonial law (starting in 1647) it states that “if such person shall refuse to serve in, or take upon him any office, being legally chosen thereunto, he shall pay for such refusal, such fine, as the Town shall impose not exceeding Twenty shillings for one offence.” In today’s time if you refused to participate in your jury duties you would be fined two thousand dollars. Four years after the Declaration of Independence was written, the Massachusetts Constitution was written by John Adams. The Massachusetts Constitution guaranteed the right of trial by jury in criminal and civil cases in the state constitution. In Article XII states that no one should be arrested, imprisoned, despoiled, or deprived of him, and that they can’t give any punishments without a trial by jury. Civil jury trials were cited three articles later. Jurors then and now are much different in ways that previously jurors were only required to serve for thirty days. Now, jurors must serve for just one day or the duration of one trial. Today in the jury service, there are no exemptions. In the jury service you can only get ten disqualifications which mean lack of citizenship, certified medical inability to serve, and incarceration. Today, the length of jury services usually doesn’t go longer than three days. Around ninety percent of jurors will complete their service in one day, while ninety-five percent will finish within three days or less. But in certain cases the trial can go longer for three days, the judge will then inform the prospective jurors, which gives them the opportunity to request a hardship excuse when they speak with the judge. In the jury service there are certain people who must serve. Citizens in the united States that are aged eighteen or older who live in Massachusetts for at least six months or longer, and is not otherwise disqualified from any jury disqualification standards, are eligible for jury service. This can also include citizens who attend college in Massachusetts or residents of Massachusetts that study out of state. In the Juries Act 1974, which is the present qualifications, a person must be at least aged between eighteen and seventy.
They also have to be registered to vote, which means as a parliamentary or local government elector. There are disqualifications too, for example you cannot be mentally disordered or be disqualified from jury service. Before these qualifications you needed a property qualification to be a juror. Meaning, you had to be the owner or tenant of a dwelling. Usually women and young people were less likely to own or even rent property which meaning they couldn’t serve on a jury trial.
Jury system qualifications and composition have changed over the years in the United States. In the beginning they were only used to provide local knowledge and information, while today they have become more complex. To creating different courts, such as, crown court, high courts, and county courts. To letting citizens of the United States participate and serve on a jury trial has changed dramatically since the fifteenth century. Since the days of the Pilgrims, jury service today remains one of the cornerstones of our system of
government.
The movie Runaway Jury starts with a shooting in a business office. The movie then continues to people receiving jury summons and people taking pictures of them. It goes on to show Rankin Fitch and the defense committing electronic surveillance during the jury selections. This movie shows how Fitch and the defense attempt to influence the jury to vote for the defense. The movie continuously shows a person by the name of “Marlee” who talks to Fitch and Rohr trying to persuade them to pay her in order for the jury to be “swayed” their way. “Marlee” is Nick Easter’s girlfriend. As the movie progresses, the viewer realizes that Nick was pretended to get avoid jury duty in order to secure a spot in the jury. The movie ends with the jury voting against the gun company and then Nick and “Marlee” blackmailing Fitch with a receipt for $15 million and they demand that he retire immediately. They inform him that the $15 million will benefit the shooting victims in the town of Gardner.
This chapter is mainly devoted to the jury selection process and how it is taken care
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.
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.
The modern US version of a jury derived from ancient English law. It is said in the early 11th century, William the Conqueror brought a form of a jury system from Normandy that became the basis for early England’s juries. It was constructed of men who were sworn by oath to tell the king what they knew. King Henry II then expanded on the idea by using a group of white men with good morals to not only judge the accused, but also to investigate crimes. King Henry II had panels of 12 everyday, law abiding men; this aspect of it is much like modern juries. The difference is that these early jurors were “self-informing”. This means that they were expected to already have knowledge of the facts that would be presented in court prior to the trial. King Henry II’s first jurors were assigned the job of resolving the land disputes that were occurring in England. ...
The court system is composed of lawyers, judges, and juries. Their job is to ensure that everyone receives a fair trial, determine guilt or innocence, and apply sentences to guilty parties. The court system will contain one judge, and a jury of twelve citizens. The jury of the court will determine the guilt or innocence of the individual. The jury will also recommend a sentence for the crime the individual committed.
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.
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 system is essentially a descendant of Great Britain, the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians. Colonialism played a significant role in the development of the jury system globally. However, despite colonial influence, judicial systems across the world have taken their own way. As a result, the jury system has developed and changed to suit the needs and social conscience of different countries. Across the world, juries examine and decide the facts in a jury trial, the accuracy of the testimony, the guilt or innocence of criminal defendants, and liabilities in a civil litigation. Today, many countries such as Britain, United States, Brazil, Canada, Japan, Australia, France, German, India, and so on practice jury trials. These countries will be the issue of discussion in this paper.
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.
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...
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.