Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Is the justice system fair
Role of a jury in a criminal trial
Fairness in the criminal justice system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Is the justice system fair
How do we know that every time we go into the courtroom for a crime that we have committed we are going to receive a fair trial? How are we supposed to know that each person in there will not already have an opinion? Over the years there have been many different court cases that were decided on what color you were. An example of this is, a white man was a juror in a black man’s case where he killed his wife and his kids, he said that since the man was black he wanted to give him the death penalty. Is this the type of person you would want in your jurors, already having an opinion before you even begin? This is constantly happening all over the United States in court rooms. No matter what happens though people will always have an opinion no matter what. There is no way to change that. What we can change though is having people on the jury that understand what you have been through. This is one of the biggest problems when it comes to court rooms. We need to make sure everyone is given a fair trial, no matter what the circumstance are, and what the ruling could be. Everyone …show more content…
Many of the judges can become corrupt over their years of serving. Most judges begin to accept bribes and many different things that will help out one side. They have the power of what can be said in their court and what cannot be. This can make it much easier for them to favor one side or the other. They can also become more of a referee then a judge according to John F. Molloy who wrote the book The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion. This book was about all of the different reasons why he believed the court system was corrupt. He also states that judges will create their own laws based on their own opinions and rulings. Knowing this how are we supposed to believe that we are going to be receiving a fair trial. Are they always going to be siding with the defense team or are they going to be on your
When an individual is called for jury duty they are supposed to act as an impartial juror. This ultimately means that they will hear both cases and come to a verdict without any prejudices or biases in the way. As humans, people are most likely going to be swayed one way or another when they hear each side of the case. No matter the reason, a juror can be bias even when they know they shouldn’t be. Overall, I do not believe in the concept of the impartial juror. It is a great idea, but it is hard to tell if an individual is actually giving a verdict based on the case or based on his or her own biases. This could taint the trial and cause jurors to be forced to leave the
Despite the efforts of lawyers and judges to eliminate racial discrimination in the courts, does racial bias play a part in today’s jury selection? Positive steps have been taken in past court cases to ensure fair and unbiased juries. Unfortunately, a popular strategy among lawyers is to incorporate racial bias without directing attention to their actions. They are taught to look for the unseen and to notice the unnoticed. The Supreme Court in its precedent setting decision on the case of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), is the first step to limiting racial discrimination in the court room. The process of selecting jurors begins with prospective jurors being brought into the courtroom, then separating them into smaller groups to be seated in the jury box. The judge and or attorneys ask questions with intent to determine if any juror is biased or cannot deal with the issues fairly. The question process is referred to as voir dire, a French word meaning, “to see to speak”. During voir dire, attorneys have the right to excuse a juror in peremptory challenges. Peremptory challenges are based on the potential juror admitting bias, acquaintanceship with one of the parties, personal knowledge of the facts, or the attorney believing he/she might not be impartial. In the case of Batson v. Kentucky, James Batson, a black man, was indicted for second-degree burglary and receipt of stolen goods. During the selection of the jury the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to strike out all of the four black potential jurors, leaving an all white jury. Batson’s attorney moved to discharge the venire, the list from which jurors may be selected, on the grounds that the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges violated his client’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to have a jury derived from a “cross-section of the community”(People v. Wheeler, 583 P.3d 748 [Calif. 1978]). The circuit court ruled in favor of the prosecutor and convicted Batson on both counts. This case went through the courts and finalized in the U.S. Supreme Court.
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.
The New York Times bestseller book titled Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case examines the O.J. Simpson criminal trial of the mid-1990s. The author, Alan M. Dershowitz, relates the Simpson case to the broad functions and perspectives of the American criminal justice system as a whole. A Harvard law school teacher at the time and one of the most renowned legal minds in the country, Dershowitz served as one of O.J. Simpson’s twelve defense lawyers during the trial. Dershowitz utilizes the Simpson case to illustrate how today’s criminal justice system operates and relates it to the misperceptions of the public. Many outside spectators of the case firmly believed that Simpson committed the crimes for which he was charged for. Therefore, much of the public was simply dumbfounded when Simpson was acquitted. Dershowitz attempts to explain why the jury acquitted Simpson by examining the entire American criminal justice system as a whole.
The courthouse was crowded, all seats were taken and many were standing in the back. It was silent, no one spoke, not even a baby cried out. There was the Judge sitting in the front of the room, the defendant, the solicitor, and the jury. I was a member of the jury that day. Everyone knew the truth, the defendant was innocent, and the evidence that was established was supportive and clear. The jury’s decision however, was not based on evidence, but on race. A jury is supposed to put their beliefs aside and make a decision based on the information given during the trial. Jury members must do their duty and do what is right. I tried to do what was right, but all the other members of the jury were blind. They chose to convict because of skin color than actual evidence from the case. I wanted to avoid this disease, but it is easily spread from one person to another. It made me angry that an innocent man was convicted for something he did not even do. He was convicted because of his skin color and nothing else. When the judge asked us to leave the courtroom to make a decision, we stayed o...
Viewing a judge's sentence creates a divide in society. Will the accused be offered a fair trial? Could t...
The criminal trial process is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society to a great extent. For the law to be effective, the criminal trial process must reflect what is accepted by society to be a breach of moral and ethical conduct and the extent to which protections are granted to the victims, the offenders and the community. For these reasons, the criminal trial process is effectively able to achieve this in the areas of the adversary system, the system of appeals, legal aid and the jury system.
The Miranda warnings stem from a United States Court’s decision in the case, Miranda v. Arizona. There are two basic conditions that must be met for Miranda warnings to be required: the suspect must be in official police custody and the suspect must be under interrogation. The suspect goes through a booking process after an arrest. The suspect will have a bond hearing shortly after the completion of the booking process or after arraignment. The arraignment is the suspect’s first court appearance to officially hear the charges filed against him or her and to enter a plea. The preliminary hearing or grand jury proceeding determines if there is substantial evidence for the suspect to be tried for the crime charged. In this essay, I will identify and describe at least four rights afforded criminal defendants at the arrest stage and during pretrial. I will analyze the facts presented and other relevant factors in the scenario provided. I will cite legal authority to support my conclusions.
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.
We, the families and supporters of innocent citizens that have been condemned for crimes that they did not commit, are tired of mistreatment. In the court of law, it is assumed that there is no bias in play, but how is that possible if the outcome can be predicted before one sets foot in the courtroom (pg.1)? This not only is a waste of time, it also lets the guilty walk free among the rest of society, teaching them that they can get away with anything they please. How can we truly say that the innocent are innocent until proven guilty, when the verdict is being decided based on feeling and not fact?
In previous eras, anti-Black sentiment was widely acknowledged and sometimes encouraged in the United States. Black litigants have endured a long history of racist attitudes and inequality in the criminal justice system To this day, it is impossible to determine if jurors present an unbiased trial for the defendants regardless of their racial background. Although the undercurrent of racism may continue to be present in modern juries, racial prejudice in the modern legal system is certainly less flagrant as many.
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.
In 1949, the United States Federal Communications Commission introduced a policy referred to as the Fairness Doctrine in which “broadcast journalist was required to dedicate airtime to controversial issues of the public concern in a balanced manner” (p 19). The rationale for the policy was the belief that the media without the requirement to present information regarding controversial issues in an equitable and balanced manner would possess the power to sway public opinion in a manner that would not serve the public interest. Given that many Americans receive their information through the mainstream media like the major television networks and cable broadcasting entities, as well as newspapers such as the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal,
Our current trial by jury system was originally adopted from Anglo-Saxon English common law. Prior to juries, the United States had much more rudimentary methods that were in affect, such as bench trials. A bench trial consists of solely the judge determining the final verdict, versus a jury possessing that responsibility. Proceeding with a trial by jury assures that there will be a margin of error, simply due to the fact that the jurors are human, and are susceptible to human fallibility. Whether the jury is cognizant of it or not, emotions such as pre-determined bias and favoritism can impede or bring the case to a halt all together. According to Andy Leipold, a professor emeritus at the University of Illinois College of Law, the number of jury trial conviction rates have increased from 75 percent in 1946 to 84 percent from 1989 to 2002 (Krause). This sudden anomaly can be attributed to the influx of uneducated jurors, the increased cost of proceeding to trial, and improper juror selection.
In the novel The Stranger by Albert Camus, the main character Meursault was convicted of murder and as a result was sentenced to death for his questionable character and wrongdoings. It can be argued that the verdict was just or unjust but in the end, the unjust assumptions and invalid connections outweigh the severity of the crime.