The right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury is implicitly indicated in the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. A jury is a panel of citizens who hear and render a verdict in a case that is being tried in the community. Juries hear and render verdicts on both Civil and Criminal cases. Currently, juror qualifications are the following; are at least 18 years of age, a United States Citizen, reside in the location of jury service, are able to read and write in English, have no disqualifying mental or physical condition. Disqualifications for juror selection include the following; felony conviction or felonious charges where the punishment can result in imprisonment for a year or more. In addition to, qualifications and disqualifications, exemptions exist for jury service that depends on the locality of the venue. Federally, jury exemptions are of the following; public officers, members of professional police and fire departments, and members who are active duty in the armed forces. In addition, local exceptions for jurors are of the following; over 70 years of age, primary caretaker of a person who is unable to care for himself or herself, guardians who have a child younger than 12 years of age, where the guardian service on the jury would require leaving the child without supervision, a student in public or private secondary school, a person enrolled and in actual attendance at a higher education institution. Fairness was not always permitted in regards to having chosen a jury present at hearings, in the early times prejudice was highly common. In the past, groups excluded from jury service such as women, African Americans, and those of Hispanic descent. Previous group exclusions are deemed unconstit... ... middle of paper ... ...juries can be swayed by either the defense or prosecution in a case hearing as well as jurors can often rush to make a decision even though it necessarily is not the correct one, in order to finish the process and return to their normal lives. The list of disadvantages by having a jury by trial can go on and on if allowed although, many citizens tend to feel negatively towards the dutiful task of jury duty. Overall, understanding and realizing the many benefits of having a jury is most important especially in America. Other countries do not often have trials by jury. The democracy of the United States enables the people to have a say in their own local government by providing the opportunity to serve on a jury of their peers. Even though controversies arise, in the past and possibly the present juries will still prove to provide different outlooks and fair verdicts.
Jury duty is the obligation to serve on a jury. There are many reasons for being excused if summoned, here are some: having no public or private transportation or having to exceed 1 ½ hours to travel to the trial (http://www.courti…); if you are under 18 or older than 70 (choose not to serve), or if you are not a US resident with a home in the state (http://www.cga …); if you cannot speak or understand English; or is a constitutional officer, a family support magistrate, a judge, or a member of the general assembly (http://www.cga …). After being selected for jury duty, one is at risk of jury tampering which is a crime where someone attempts to influence the jury via means other than those presented during the trial (http://le...
Beverly, I am also a proponent of the United States developing a system of professional jurors. I also believe it would cut down on biased opinions and help rebuild people’s faith in our criminal justice system. In addition to the points you made, I believe professional jurors also would alleviate the process of the prosecution and defense counsel being able to stack the jury pool with individuals favorable to them. Although the U.S. is a country that is for the people, many citizens don’t want to set on a panel of jurors to determine the fate of an individual they do not know (Weigman, 2011). The main reasons for this is because, it causes them to be pulled away from their livelihoods, which for many encompasses work and family. Lastly,
There are hundreds of Americans who are selected for jury duty every day. Just like the characters many of them believe jury duty is a major conflict in their lives. They may say they do not have time to participate, which may be true, but the law will make sure you have time. As always, life and time keep going, and nobody wants to miss it. No one prefers to sit in court when they can be doing something productive but it is not going to kill them. Everyone deserves to have a jury hear them and surely they would want that for themselves.
This chapter is mainly devoted to the jury selection process and how it is taken care
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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’.
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.
Today, juries are much more diverse. Men, women, and people from diverse backgrounds are called to jury duty. Although the origin of the jury system is not clear, history has shown that William the Conqueror from Normandy introduced a similar system to England around 1066 CE (Judiciary of Vermont 1). After the American Revolutionary War, the jury system became the American ideal of justice. This essay will explore the history of the American jury system and illustrate how it has evolved over the course of the American history.
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.
This is how our laws work now, for the most part. Justice is usually set up and carried out by our police, courts, and other law making officials in our society. Although this system has worked for our society thus far, situations do occur in which our laws are not so clear on. When cases like this happen the court system takes over and then a trial takes place for the offender. A trial is a very good way to ensure that an offender will be treated fairly and they will not be unjustly convicted. Sometimes justice and fairness can be misleading. For example, a trial’s jury members can cause a person to have unjust penalties and or sentences. Jury members may have a personal opinion that conflicts with the case such as racism, their religion, or just pure emotion. Not everyone who participates in this system acts in a just manner. For instance there was a case involving an African American man by the name of Rodney King. This man was allegedly beaten by L.A.P.D. officers while they were attempting to arrest him. Although the beating was caught on tape, it was deemed necessary to be appropriate amount of excessive force by twelve all white male jurors, who found the police not guilty of assault. I would like to see cases like this excluded from happening again. It is important for everyone to get there day in