Jury Amendments

847 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Annotated bibliography police brutality

On November 19, 1863, Abraham Lincoln stood on the hallowed ground of the Gettysburg battlefield and began his historic address: “Four score and seven years ago….” He would speak for about as long as it will take us to present our prepared remarks to you today, and would conclude with this sacred challenge: “that we here highly resolve that…government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” There is no greater example of government “of the people, by the people, for the people” than the right of trial by jury. The jury is a slice of The People—not mere representatives of The People, but literally The People—whose vital role was to be the ultimate finder of fact and of law. We agree that the right to …show more content…

Before government officials can force a defendant to suffer the physical and financial trial of a serious criminal prosecution, they must first win the consent of ordinary Americans from the community in a grand panel. Therefore the Fifth Amendment secured the role of the grand jury, which could thwart any prosecution that it deemed unfounded or malicious. The Fifth Amendment due-process clause concerned the jury even more directly, for its core meaning was that a criminal defendant could typically be brought to trial only by means of a lawful indictment or presentment by a grand …show more content…

This amendment codifies the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases, and inhibits courts from overturning a jury's findings of fact Antifederalist, due to their fear of a strong national government have always been in favor of juries. In one antifederalist pamphlet, they stated “Judges, unincumbered by juries, have been ever found much better friends to government than to the people.” Therefore, another leading antifederalist described jurors as “centinels and guardian” of “the people.” Thus limiting government. James Madison exclaimed, “the trial by jury, as one of the best securities to the rights of the people, ought to remain inviolate.” The grand jury is one limit on the strong central government that the antifederalist so frantically sought. The grand jury could foil any prosecution that they found malicious before it got to trial, especially if it suspected that the executive was trying to use the powers of incumbency illegitimately to entrench itself in office by prosecuting its political

Show More
Related

  • The Battle of Gettysburg as the Turning Point of the Civil War

    1599 Words  | 4 Pages

    On November 19, President Lincoln went to the battlefield to dedicate it as a military cemetery. He spoke for a short period of time delivering what is called the Gettysburg Address, surprising many present in the audience with its shortness and leaving others quite unimpressed, but over time the speech has come to symbolize democracy as we know it today (Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia Vol. 11 385).

    Read More

  • Dbq Essay On The Jury System

    921 Words  | 2 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • The Gaspee Affair Began a Chain that Lead to the 13 Colonies Declaring Indendence from Britain

    1009 Words  | 3 Pages

    To the American people, a trial by jury was viewed as a fundamental right. To take away the right to a fair trial was an offense they did not take lightly. A trial by jury gave, “…raw power to determine facts and law insulated the people from oppression by the king, judges, and even legislature” (Blinka, 57). For the British government to threaten to diminish that power, was an act that colonists viewed as a threat against their civil rights, and freedoms. In enacting the Administration of Justice Act in 1774, the British government was directly aggravating the American’s views on a right to a fair trial. The disagreements between the colonists, and Great Britain would lead to the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and a charge against a King and government they declared unfit to rule.

    Read More

  • Hamilton Argues Against A Bill Of Rights

    994 Words  | 2 Pages

    During the late 18th century the Antifederalists argued against the constitution on the grounds that it did not contain a bill of rights. They believed that without a list of personal freedoms, the new national government might abuse its powers and that the states would be immersed in an all too dominant and influential national government. The Antifederalists worried that the limits on direct voting and the long terms of the president and senators, supplied by the constitution, would create a population of elites and aristocrats, which in turn would eventually take away power from the people. They also feared that the president might become another monarch. In other words, the Antifederalists ultimately felt that the new Constitution was undemocratic.

    Read More

  • Lincoln At Gettysburg: The Words That Remade America

    1132 Words  | 3 Pages

    Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words That Remade America "Fourscore and seven years ago…." These are the first 5 of only two hundred seventy-two words that remade America. In Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words That Remade America, the author, Gary Wills, informed us that Abraham Lincoln wanted equality among us and to unite as one. In Abraham Lincoln's own speech, he would not mention single individuals or even top officers. Everyone was considered as equal importance and was never any different. "Though we call Lincoln's text the Gettysburg Address, that title clearly belongs to Everett." 1 This is very true, which I think is interesting. Everett who was chosen by David Wills to commemorate the National Cemetery of Gettysburg, was supposed to be the speaker while Lincoln was only the dedicatory remarks speaker. Not only did Lincoln have the favorable speech, it was only three minutes while Everett's was two hours long. Lincoln also supposedly was not supposed to be there to speak; he actually just told a correspondent that he would be present. It's amazing to believe that a two hundred seventy-two word speech would say so much to thousands of people.

    Read More

  • Pathos In The Gettysburg Address

    822 Words  | 2 Pages

    ‘’Four score and seven years ago…’’(Lincoln, 1) You’ve probably heard those six words before, right? On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln delivered ‘’The Gettysburg Address’’. Abraham Lincoln’s purpose in ‘’The Gettysburg Address’’ was to persuade listeners to finish what those who fought for died for by treating everyone else equally. ‘’The Gettysburg Address’’ is the most compelling speech due to its use of rhetorical devices.

    Read More

  • World War II as a Good War

    1889 Words  | 4 Pages

    ... indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.) rights. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the U.S. Government In both cases. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/

    Read More

  • Jury Nullification: Power, Impact and Controversy

    1444 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Seventh Amendment Essay

    532 Words  | 2 Pages

    The right to have trial by jury is an easy and simple right letting someone to be able to choose to have their fate be decide by a group of people with having different opinions from different minds letting them have a better chance of finding out the truth, because people have different perspectives in what they see. Which is also a very important right to the freedom we have and to our country. In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Which defines as if someone gets charged over twenty dollars, then they’re able to ask for a jury to hear their side of the case before they lose their money and once the jury makes their decision they can not change it. This Amendment is important to our freedom because into the decision of the Farmers while they were writing on the Bill of Rights they thought it would only be fair to have an equal court system.

    Read More

  • Essay On Ratification Of The Constitution

    1213 Words  | 3 Pages

    While the Federalists believe in a strong, central government, the Anti-Federalists believe in the shared power of state and national governments to maintain the rights of all Americans .The Anti-Federalist favored a confederated government were the state and national governments could share power ,protect citizen’s freedom ,and independence. The Anti-Federalists found many problems in the Constitution. Many were concerned the central government take was all individual rights. Anti-Federalist primarily consisted of farmers and tradesmen and was less likely to be a part of the wealthy elite than were members of their rival the Federalist. Many Anti-federalists were local politicians who feared losing power should the Constitution be ratified and argued that senators that served for too long and represented excessively large territories would cause senators to forget what their responsibilities were for that state. They argued that the Constitution would give the country an entirely new and unknown form of government and saw no reason in throwing out the current government. Instead, they believed that the Federalists had over-stated the current problems of the country and wanted improved characterization of power allowable to the states. They also maintained that the Framers of the Constitution had met as a discriminatory group under an order of secrecy and had violated the stipulations of the Articles of Confederation in the hopes for the for ratification of the Constitution. The Anti-Federalist were sure that the Constitution would take away the rights of the American citizens and fought hard to stop the ratification on the

    Read More

  • The History of Juries

    590 Words  | 2 Pages

    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’.

    Read More

  • Gettysburg Address Rhetorical Analysis

    893 Words  | 2 Pages

    Four and a half months after the Union defeated the Confederacy at the Battle of Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address on November 19, 1863. He gave the Union soldiers a new perspective on the war and a reason to fight in the Civil War. Before the address, the Civil War was based on states’ rights. Lincoln’s speech has the essence of America and the ideals that were instilled in the Declaration of Independence by the Founders. The sixteenth president of the United States was capable of using his speech to turn a war on states’ rights into a war on slavery and upholding the principles that America was founded upon.

    Read More

  • The Jury and Its Role in the Courts of Trial

    1507 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Essay On Jury Nullification

    1227 Words  | 3 Pages

    Jury nullification is the constitutional power that jurors have to address such issues as fairness, selectiveness and compassion, which would otherwise not be part of their deliberation. Each and every day, there are cases held in courtrooms across America where all evidence points to a guilty verdict, yet jurors decide to sign a “not guilty” verdict. Jurors who make a conscious decision to ignore the Judge’s instructions to “follow the law”, do so because they believe that there

    Read More

  • Juuries In The Criminal Justice System

    1500 Words  | 3 Pages

    While the jury remains a vital cog in the machine that is the English legal system, the debate over its validity has attracted many academic and legal opinions. The jury has been an integral part of criminal proceedings in Britain for over 800 years. Though the concept of the jury has remained a constant, the role of the juries in criminal proceedings has altered greatly. When juries were first introduced, they were used as witnesses as opposed to the modern role of returning a verdict. The concept of using a jury is to allow ‘ordinary citizens to participate in the administration of justice’ . This is designed to promote public confidence.

    Read More

More about Jury Amendments

Open Document