Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The history of jury
Essay on jury selection
Essay on jury selection
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The history of jury
Trial by Jury was first introduced during the reign of King Henry II as a mechanism to uncover the King’s rights, but it wasn’t until King Henry III that the jury was molded into a body of witnesses to call on their knowledge. Presently, our jury system is a body of witnesses that determine the guilt or innocence grounded upon a presentation of facts and evidence. The current structure of trial by jury is not sufficiently democratic. Jury panels are not selected democratically, but instead are chosen through a process call “voir dire” where attorneys and the judge ask a series of questions to establish the “impartiality” of the potential juror. This aspect of jury selection rejects the democratic notion that everyone is equally qualified to rule. The unanimity of the verdict is another key component of trial by juries that is not appropriately democratic because it forces people to fall under the coercion of others. This feature discards the fundamentals of democratic rule, which is a majority rule. These aspects of trial by jury do not ensure the effectiveness of a trial and actually hinder the possibility for a fair verdict. With the increasing number of trials all over the United States, reform of these components are necessary to guarantee the just and democratic ruling of trials.
Initial jury selection is done at random within certain territorial confines. Once the jury pool is selected, it undergoes questioning by both attorneys and the judge and empanelled before the trial to ensure a jury “of one’s peers”. However, attorneys on both sides hold jurisdiction to discard the preliminary members in order to further benefit their standpoint. The questions asked range from across the spectrum and are used as a strategic ta...
... middle of paper ...
...ied to serve and eliminates all prejudice that may come out of the voir dire process. Having a random selection of a jury panel also nullifies the chance that a verdict can be reached based on emotional stimulus. The entire manner a case is conducted will demonstrate higher ethics and rational because the jury would have been chosen democratically. Holding trials that are effectively structured around ethics and rational are better for the functioning of American government. The only disadvantage that may emerge from the random selection of jury is that the panel may be too democratic and in a diverse nation like the United Sates, too heterogeneous. Democracy essentially requires more homogeneity in its structure because too many differences create conflict. Conflicts in jury panels can be detrimental the entire court case, especially if a verdict cannot be reached.
This chapter is mainly devoted to the jury selection process and how it is taken care
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.
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
Mention the pros and cons of our jury system and possible alternatives of it. Also, identify the group dynamics of the jury members
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.
The questions should be shaped around the individual’s views and also his or her ability to think analytically. Nevertheless, without these important questions, an individual may not qualify for the job. For example, Juror #10, the Garage Owner was an individual who was prejudiced against the defendant. Juror #10 was quick to agree that the defendant is guilty because of his personal view on the defendant’s color and where he lives. By, incorporating critical thinking questions, this may assist to find individuals who do not let their own personal views cloud their judgement and their decision
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’.
Famous writer Robert Frost stated, “A jury consists of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer.” While selecting a competent lawyer is important, in the court of law, the process of jury selection is easily one of the most important factors. While many elements are considered during the process of jury selection, the most valuable is the use of psychology. Psychology is used by lawyers during the process of jury selection to choose the best possible jurors to decide the fate of their client. Psychology can be used in many different ways such as voir dire, persuasion, and research.
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.
Stevenson, D 2012, The function of uncertainty within jury systems, George Mason Law Review, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 513-548, viewed 6 May 2014, .
Otto, A. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1994). The Biasing Impact Of Pretrial Publicity On Juror Judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 18(4), 453-469.
From conception in the Magna Carta 1215, juries have become a sacred constitutional right in the UK’s justice system, with the independence of the jury from the judge established in the R v. Bushel’s case 1670. Although viewed by some as a bothersome and an unwelcomed duty, by others it is perceived to be a prized and inalienable right, and as Lord Devlin comments ‘ trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution : it is the lamp that shows freedom lives.’ It is arguable that juries bring a ‘unique legitimacy’ to the judicial process, but recently it seems that their abolition may be the next step forward for the UK in modernising and making the judicial system more effective. Many argue that jurors lack the expertise and knowledge to make informed verdicts, along with views that external forces are now influencing juries more heavily, especially after the emergence of the internet and the heavy presence it now has on our lives. Yet, corruption within the jury system is also internal, in that professionals and academics may ‘steamroll’ others during deliberations about the case. These factors, coupled with the exorbitant costs that come along with jury trials creates a solid case for the abolition of juries. On the other hand though, the jury system carries many loyal supporters who fear its abolition may be detrimental to society. Academics and professionals such as John Morris QC state that; 'it may well not be the perfect machine, but it is a system that has stood the test of time.’ Juries ensure fair-practice within the courtroom, and although controversial, they have the power to rule on moral and social grounds, rather than just legal pre...
... In a speech to the House of Lords in 1844 Lord Denman remarked: 'Trial by jury itself, instead of being a security to persons who are accused, will. be a delusion, a mockery and a snare. The question of juror competence remains a recurrent feature in both the research and policy. literature (Horowitz et al., 1996; Penrod & Heuer, 1997). Indeed, in the. 1998 the Home Office invited commentary on whether an alternative to the traditional jury system was appropriate for cases of serious fraud.
Long-drawn out trials that go on for years cause psychological stress, tension in the family of those involved in the case, and these trials make a huge dent in the money supply of the court system in the government. Each day members of the jury have to be accounted for and must receive money for their services. Using a judge is both cost-effective and smart. Additionally, judges usually don’t take as long to make decisions in court as they are both efficient in what they do and are well-informed of the subject, the particular person on trial, and they have the know-how to execute the correct sentence. “In 2010, 2,352 federal criminal defendants had a jury trial and 88% of these criminal jury trials ended in a conviction.” (Document A) Now on the one hand some...
A judge will excuse anyone whose biased attitudes will interfere with his or her duties as a juror. This pretrial phase called the “voir dire”. Questioning jurors about their beliefs is forbidden in England and Canada, therefore “voir dire” is not used. At one time, American juries were instructed that after hearing the evidence, they had the right both to decide the facts of the case and to interpret the meaning of the law, regardless of what the judge told them. Though this practice has changed, American juries still have more power and discretion than English and Canadian juries. American juries also play an important role in deciding whether or not the death penalty should be given to people convicted of first-degree murder. Additionally, thirteen states give the jury the authority to set the length of prison sentence for defendants convicted of other serious crimes. In their countries, juries are far more obedient to judges. Judges alone pronounce the law and set