More handpicked essays just for you.
Role of a jury in a criminal trial
Arguments to support the use of juries in criminal cases
Role of a jury in a criminal trial
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In the 2003 film, Runaway Jury, we see how important the jury is when it comes to determining the outcome of a case. Jurors are essential to the setup of our American system of justice. Jurors decide on the facts of cases, while the judge of the case utilizes the law. Since the jury has a large impact on the result of a case, it is important that jurors are invested and interested in the case, otherwise jury trials can be considered unjust.
There is a 50% chance the jurors of a case will either be invested in the outcome or uninvested. When a jury contains uninvested jurors this impacts the result in a poor way and ruins the current value of the jury system. These jurors rarely listen to the case because as quoted by Rankin Fitch “He wants to go home and sit in his Barcalounger and let the cable TV wash over him” Jurors like this tend to be present but not involved, which ultimately ruins a case. With this said, it is important to have a jury that is completely invested because a jury that isn’t invested might allow a child
…show more content…
molester to get off the hook or a murderer to walk free. But I believe jurors do become invested in cases even if it isn’t from very start. They are listening to facts and evidence over time and hearing the argument being fought. They are then able to discuss which argument they agree with which is the essentially the final verdict of the case. The jury is important to the outcome because whatever side they choose to run with, will help determine the result. These invested jurors want to see rightful justice for the people involved. Since jurors are chosen at random and are unable to deny the offer to be on the jury, they may be uninterested in the case because they have other things on their minds. Rankin Fitch says “You think your average juror is King Solomon? No! He’s a roofer with a mortgage.” This shows that jurors are middle class citizens who need to work hard for their money. A juror’s interest drifts off for a number of reasons, one being they need to serve jury duty during a time that they’re struggling to put food on the table for their families or having a difficult time at work. Jurors also lose interest in a case because no matter what decision they make regarding the trial, their lives won’t be affected by it. When a juror is uninterested in a case, they ignore all the facts and evidence given, and then when the time comes their vote is determined off of the other jurors vote or at random which affects the final decision because when you obtain an even number of jurors, each jurors vote matters. When a jury is chosen, they are chosen at random.
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
not. It is vital, as a juror, to pay attention to the facts and evidence given in a case for there to be justice. When a juror ignores those essential pieces of a case it affects the trial in a negative way, which is the main reason people don’t trust jury trial systems. Jury trials are fair as long as you have a jury that is attentive during the case and truly want to see justice served
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.
I believe that the jury system is an unfair system due to the limitations which are included during jury selection. Many professionals and groups of people are exempt from jury service: police or anyone dealing with the law (law student, lawyer, judges, assessors), anyone dealing in medicine (doctors, nurses), small or large business owners Pregnant women or women in general can claim special considerations, along with; teachers, accountants, ministers of religion, or generally anyone with a professional/education. So due to this, people who serve on a jury can be unemployed or part of a less educated and informed strata of society.
So the first reading that convinced me having a jury system was a bad idea was document F. This was a passage from a book called Roughing It by Mark Twain. He talks about a murder that happened in Virginia and how a prominent banker and valued citizen was denied to be on the case because he knew about the case beforehand. This circulated in my head and did not make sense to me, the jury would rather be full of unvalued citizens who have no
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
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,...
In America, every individual has the right to a fair trial, but how fair is the trial? When an individual is on trial, his or her life is on the line, which is decided by twelve strangers. However, who is to say that these individuals take their role seriously and are going to think critically about the case? Unfortunately, there is no way to monitor the true intentions of these individuals and what they feel or believe. In the movie, Twelve Angry Men, out of the twelve jurors’ only one was willing to make a stance against the others, even though the evidence seemed plausible against the defendant. Nevertheless, the justice system is crucial; however, it is needs be reformed.
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’.
Carcasses attract scavengers. The Guilty Party by O. Henry showcases the untimely death of a girl of twelve, Liz. Above Chrystie Street on the east side, a strange bird stalks the children of the playground. Although people say it’s a stork, locals call it a vulture. In this case, Liz is the carcass that the vulture sets its eyes on.
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
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.
Citizens of the United States are given the right to a fair trial. Over the course of the development of the American jury system, citizens are allowed to the right to meet one’s accuser, be represented by his/her peers and protection from being tried more than once on any convicted crime. The jury system has evolved from a representation of all white men to both men and women from very diverse backgrounds. This is important if one is going to be tried in his/her community of peers.
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.
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
The juvenile system was first established in the United States around 1899 when Illinois had their first court appearance including a juvenile. This then led to the Nation’s first juvenile system being created, which was for youth under the age of eighteen who have been convicted of crimes. Up until then, most youth were tried as an adult until the system was put into place. The system has different sections in which they youth is taken in such as: intake, adjudication, disposition, and post adjudicatory.
I could cite several examples where I thought a judge’s or jury’s ruling was not fair, but I won’t because frankly, we’ve all seen those. I actually believe in our legal system, and I believe in justice. I believe in justice as an ideal that we strive for, and that is what it means to me. The legal system, when looked at closer, is not justice but instead judgment. You can be punished when found guilty, in a number of ways, but who knows if they’re “fair” punishments, it’s all a matter of opinion.