Although often interpreted differently by individuals, legal rights, human rights and the
jury system are essential features of the legal system. Nielsen believes that the main purpose of
rights is to protect individuals, while Hajjar portrays the objective of the legal system as
recognizing and respecting certain inherent human rights. Further, Dooley understands the jury
system as essential for ensuring a democratic and fair trial procedure. As rights and the jury
system are viewed according to these varying objectives, it seems there is a general assumption
that the legal system is intended to protect individuals from the power of the government.
However, individuals’ abstract idea of how the law works can be contrary to the actual workings
of the legal system. Rights and the jury system create the expectation in people that they will be
protected from the power of the government, and yet these expectations often remain unfulfilled,
creating a disconnect between the idea of protection and the reality of the legal system.
In her article “The Work of Rights and the Work Rights Do,” Laura Beth Nielsen asserts
that “legal rights are important for protecting individual autonomy and resisting the arbitrary or
tyrannical imposition of state power” (Nielsen 63). In the case of traditionally disadvantaged
groups, rights have provided a sense of power as a direct result of their nature. Nielsen explains,
“’Rights’ are said to apply equally to everyone, they are ‘neutral,’ and are backed by the
legitimate authority of law and the state,” and that “Rights are often thought of as naturally
inhering in persons” (66, 68). Because many minority groups view rights as inalienable,
absolute, and supported by the government, they...
... middle of paper ...
...ermining the very ideal that rights seem to stand for. The inconsistency between expectations
and individuals’ lived experiences seems to show that rights and the jury system are fundamental
to our democratic society, but only when the government feels they should be so.
Works Cited
MLA Citation
Dooley, Laura Gaston. “Our Juries, Our Selves: The Power, Perception and Politics of the Civil
Jury.” Before the Law: An Introduction to the Legal Process. Ed. John J. Bonsignore., et.
al. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006. pp. 450-453.
Hajjar, Lisa. “Human Rights.” Reader: 55-62.
Margulies, Joseph. “A Prison Beyond the Law.” The Virginia Quarterly Review. Reader:
119-128.
Nielsen, Laura Beth. “The Work of Rights and the Work Rights Do: A Critical Approach.”
Reader: 45-79.
Toyosaburo Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S, 214 (1944). Reader: 91-102.
As members of society we are told that the law is a predictable and reliable entity which is applicable to all individuals, despite the differences. This statement encourages us to abide by the law, and entrust it to make decisions that are best for us as individuals and as a community. Due to the formalism of law, it must be emphasized that there is a need for a compassionate component, to even the playing field. One way the law incorporates compassion into its system is through the use of juries. Juries are a random, unbiased selection of people who will be asked to sit in a trial and decide a verdict of guilty or not guilty. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that “a person accused of criminal activity ‘has the right
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.
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,...
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.
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’.
"Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789." The Avalon Project. Yale Law School, n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2014.
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.
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 importance of a jury makes it necessary to understand its function, strengths and weaknesses in a criminal matter. Both the state and federal courts follow the same procedure in impaneling the jury. Most states do not accord minors the right to jury trial in court proceedings related to juvenile delinquency. The jury essentially hears the evidence presented against the defendant and potential defenses. It will then weigh the evidence and ultimately determine if the evidence satisfies the criminal offenses that the defendant has been charged, beyond any reasonable doubt. Numerous and varied rules often surround the jury. The jury mainly focuses on criminal cases because these cases put a person’s liberty at risk. Defendants do not have a right to jury trial if their jail term does not exceed six months. All jurors need to recognize the fact that jury service is a critical duty of citizenship. They may also decide questions that involve crimes for which a trial judge fine, place on probation, or confine defendant to prison. Nevertheless, a jury does not play any role in sentencing, but instead leaves it upon the trial judge to make this decision following all the submissions made by both sides. Overall, the court system must rely upon a jury for the protection of liberty, life, and the pursuit of
To a great extent, the theory of personhood rests on a breaking down and clarification of what it is to be an agent. Human rights, as understood by Griffin, are protections of our status as functional human agents, grounded in our interests in autonomy, liberty and the minimum material provision requisite to make the exercise of our agency real and possible. Griffin acknowledges that the human interests in autonomy and liberty are not the only important interests that exist, but it is the protection of these particular interests that generate a human right . In this sense, autonomy and liberty are the special, determinant grounding elements identified by Griffin as the interests required for normative agency.
In this essay, I will explain how I experienced a courtroom visit and the important issues learnt from the visit. In the courtroom, the judge was presiding over the court, and because the matters were on criminal cases there were jurors. This jury received instructions from the judge about the law, as they were nonprofessional. A jury consists of twelve persons when it comes to serious felonies and six members when it is only a misdemeanor. The reason why the judge gave them the facts on the law was to help them deliberate after the case was over to establish whether the accused person was guilty or not.
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
Simmons, A. John (1992). The Lockean Theory of Rights. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 127.
Humanity has long debated the concept of rights, as well as the role those rights play