Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The role of juries in the crown court
Paid professional jurors pros and cons
Alternatives to jury trials
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
A professional jury is something that could be great for the United States Judicial system. The meaning of a professional jury, is a group of lawyers that are meant to judge a trial and decide if the defendant is guilty or not guilty. While, a regular jury would have a group of citizens that will judge if the defendant is guilty or not guilty. Furthermore, the best part of a professional jury, is that there would be no biased against the defendant in the trial. The lawyers would know how the law system works and what type of law the person broke and how the jail sentences might work. However, professional jury might seem like a good idea, but it would be better if the defendant had his on peers in the courtroom. The reasons it might be useful
to have a professional jury is that, court cases would be clearly thought out. The first reason for professional jury court case would be clearly thought out on how to decide the verdict. The court with normal citizen will already have an opinion on the case because they would have the media expose the case to them to make an opinion on the case. For example, in the O.J. Simpson case most of the citizen they choose had already been exposed to the case. In result, most of the citizens in the jury had made up their mind on the verdict for O.J. because of his statues to the public and his defense attorney having a great defense for O.J. Simpson. However, the verdict would have probably changed if the jurors would have been professional jurors. The professional jurors would have looked over all the evidences for the case and debated over the right decision. Also, the professional jurors would have not had a biased opinion on the trial. In conclusion, a professional jury would be helpful in a case that is broadcasted more to the public to make sure the verdict is not misguided.
A Florida Registered Paralegal is a person who is qualified and has gone through training, education and work experience to work under the supervision of a lawyer. He or she is there to help the attorney with drafting documents, legal research, legal investigations, contacting clients, and interviewing clients. The bill says that the requirements of the bill are “the person has to have prescribed education and experience, and have the prescribed certifications”. In order for a person to be eligible to be a Florida Registered Paralegal they have to have met one of the following education and work experience. They have to have a bachelor’s degree in paralegal plus a minimum of one year of paralegal work experience or a person can have an associate degree plus a minimum of two years of paralegal experience. There has been a lot debate over the bill some people think the bill is helping the paralegal while others think it’s just a
While having a judge may seem like it is more effective, while calculating time spent on the case, money used, and the education in the field of justice that a judge has, using a trial by jury is the best way to preserve the American ideal of democracy. In the Jury system mini Q document F, Mark twin mentions that the jury system doesn’t want educated people because they would make the trial too easy for one side. Rather than insulting the jury system it seems like this is more of a good thing because it shows that the jury system doesn’t want people who know too much about the subject already and could sway the decision based solely on their bias. Another way that the system is fair is the fact that rather than having one judge decide the fate of a person, rather it is 12 other citizens that have no ties to the person. In the Jury system mini Q document B The letter states “a reasoned and professional judgment should be replaced by blanket verdicts or pretty well any twelve men and women … I had taken my leave of sense.” While this man is insulting the jury system what he says should still be looked at. The people that come together for a jury will have much less bias towards the accused person that a judge who has either seen the person before, or could just not be looking at it with multiple points of
The kings of the middle ages initially created the position of a coroner to investigate the suspicious deaths of people and also to collect the death tax on the deceased’s estate. In the United States, we have two positions that work in the field of death investigating, obviously the coroner and the medical examiner. These positions are widely different in how they run. To be a medical examiner, one must have many years of experience in medical school, and they must be board-approved. However, for a coroner’s position, the people in the state elect a campaigning candidate, and that candidate does not need to have any medical experience. Both of these positions perform autopsies and deal with the suspiciously deceased, however they both have incredibly different requirements. Over the past decade, the necessity of the coroner’s position came into discussion among the field. According to those who wish to kill the job, the coroner’s position does not seem to have sufficient standards for all that the job entails. However, eliminating the coroner jobs from the departments will be tremendously inefficient for all the people involved in that
Pros of a jury system are that it allows a fair trial because jurors are randomly picked and come from many ways of life therefore each person can look at the situation in a different way. However, this can also be viewed as a con because if they all have the wrong preconception the jurors could possibly wrongly accuse the accused. This is shown in the movie as 11/12 jurors were about to send the kid to be executed without even discussing it. Another
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.
Jury Bias With jury bias we examined that the perspective taking, victim impact statements and race of the victim had no main effects with ps > 0.26 and no significant interactions with ps > 0.64. Jury Race The race of the jury was divided into white and non-white participants. An ANOVA was then run with perspective taking, victim impact statements, and race of the victim as the between-participants factors to test against empathy felt for the defendant, for the victim, for the victim’s significant others. White participants. We observed that there was a main effect with the race of the jury and the empathy felt by the jury for the victim.
First, when individuals are appointed for a jury, several individuals will do anything to not be selected for the trial. For instance, my father has conveyed he was indisposed or he could not afford to miss work. Moreover, most individuals do not perceive being a juror as an honor being as a citizen, instead they see it as a burden. A substantial influence on this position is the remuneration, because individuals are missing work to serve. On average, an individual who is selected to be a juror makes about 30 to 40 dollars a day, a fraction of when he or she is working. For this
Texas politics is an interesting ecosystem of power, rules and regulations. Of course, in typical Texas fashion, most of the politics we engage in we do our own way. From governors who stay in office for a decade to our extremely diverse demographics, Texas is extremely unique. This uniqueness of course comes with its critics, benefits, and downsides. This is particularly true with the Texas Court system compared to both the federal courts and many other states.
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 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
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
This essay will discuss the role of the criminal justice professional in serving both individual and societal needs. It will identify and describe at least three individual needs and three societal needs, in addition to explaining the role of the criminal justice professional in serving each of these needs. Illustrative examples will be provided for support.
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 right to a trial by jury is one of the most fundamental concepts on which the American justice system rests. It had been in the English common law practice for several centuries and the American founders deemed in necessary to continue the practice and draft it into the United States Constitution. Prior to the Sixth Amendment, the Constitution guaranteed trial by jury for all crimes except impeachment. In 1968 the Supreme Court solidified this right in Duncan v. Louisiana stating that juries are a necessary check to g...
Whether a judge should be elected or appointed has been a topic for discussion since the creation of a judicial system. Depending on what side of the decision one may be on, there are some challenges that arise from each side. If a judge is elected, will he be judicious in his decision based on the law or based on his constituents? If the judge is appointed, will he be subject to the authority that appointed him, thereby slanting his decision to keep favor of the executive or legislator that appointed him? Mandatory retirement is also a question that brings about challenges. How old is too old? When does a judge become ineffective based on their age?