A consortium of scholars conducted the Capital Jury Project (CJP), a large scale multistate research initiative in the 1980s, to find out what causes a jury to sentence death to some defendants but not to others. Devine and Kelly (2015) used the full data set of CJP which consisted of 1198 jurors from 335 capital trials held in 14 states. Certain conditions were set and observed for data collection and inclusion or exclusion of some particular factors. Focal variables for this study were jury sentence, legally relevant case characteristics, trial characteristics, deliberation characteristics, first-vote preference distributions, and participants’ demographic characteristics. Devine and Kelly (2015) omitted some of the cases from their study. …show more content…
This study was also unique as the non-CJP studies conducted by social scientists were based on laboratory method and the role of jurors and defendants was played by participants. So a real time situation could not be assessed unless the actual jurors are interviewed and assessed. Hence, the CJP provided useful data for analyses with different perspectives. In addition to it, a large CJP data was collected over cases of number of years and different regions so it served well for the analyses. Although the data was large and it was collected from 14 states, yet, this data does not qualify to be implemented throughout the states. The demographic variables, compositions of jury, nature of cases, and other such factors do not make this data a necessary fit at all levels. There is no doubt that nearly 700 variables were considered for this data set and the possibility of human error to process such a large data can never be ruled out. Devine and Kelly (2015) studied selected variables so this selection could have affected the results as few closely related variables might have been ignored in the
The jury system of a trial is an essential element of the democratic process. It attempts to secure fairness in the justice system. Traditionally, the jury system has been viewed as a cornerstone of common law procedure. However, the use of the system of trial by jury is on the decline. Today, its use differs, depending on whether (a) it is a civil or criminal matter, and (b) in criminal matters, whether it is a summary or an indictable offence.
assistance of council, and procedural bars, venue, and jury selection, as well as potential racism by jurors. According to ( Tabak, 1999) “these reasons apply in cases in which the death penalty may be sought.” When illustrating the use of prosecutorial discretion two crime types that can be
The current jury system is based on an almost millennium-old principle found in the Magna Carta (1215). As a result of changes in society since, the system must be seen as potentially outdated. In other words, it may not satisfy the needs of modern society, judged by what the major stakeholders of the criminal justice system expect. Indeed, there are substantial flaws in current jury systems in terms of effectiveness. The two major concerns with jury systems are their representativeness and their levels of competence. The representativeness of juries is essential as their reason for existing is to represent the views of society. Having twelve jurors could be understood to ensure representativeness and eliminate room for bias. However, this does not remove the possibility of juries being biased towards parties. Even if the potential jurors contacted are representative in terms of gender, ethnicity, age and socioeconomic status and though jury duty is a compulsory engagement, 90% of Queenslanders opt out of it. This makes it very likely that juries will not be representative. One example is ethnic diversity. There is likely to be less ethnic diversity in courts because ethnic minorities might not have sufficient language ability or access to interpreters to be jurors. Another example is age. It is likely that retired people
The film “12 Angry Men” gives the audience insight as to how jury deliberations work. The film follows 12 jurors throughout the process of finding the defendant’s sentencing. The jury is overseeing a case surrounding a young boy who is charged with the murder of his father. It was interesting to see the process of this paired with the way each character’s vote had an effect on each of the other juror’s decisions. The film “12 Angry Men” portrays a realistic fluctuation of stances in a room of jurors as a whole and individually based upon the prior experiences and ethics of each juror.
During jury selection, potential jurors are interviewed then chosen or eliminated from the jury. The initial selection of potential jurors is completely random; citizens get “jury Duty” notices on a random basis. The screening of the jury selection is conducted by both the prosecution and the defense, and is overviewed by the judge on the case. During the interview, citizens are asked a number of strategic questions to ensure that they are not in any way bias for or against the defendant or case. The questions also eliminate those who have any connection to the case, in any way. It is during this interview that the lawyers on the case can voice their concerns regarding biased jurors.
On one hand many critics argue that the American jury system is no longer a good idea. On the other hand, some may disagree and say the American jury system is still a good idea. According to this view, one can readily agree that the American jury system gives the people a say in what is relevant to today. “The role of jury service in promoting self-governance and civic participation...the United States Constitution viewed jury service as a critically important feature of self-governance and enshrined [guaranteed] the right to serve on juries in the Seventh Amendment” (Document C). While the essence of John Weiser is that the jury system promotes civic participation, such a stance is invalid because their judgement can be clouded. Therefore, even though the American jury system does have its benefits, the jurors choice whether the convicted should be punished can be
Trial by jury can be traced back to the 12th Century and has been an integral part of the criminal justice system since Henry II favoured it over trial by ordeal (Davies, Croall and Tyrer 2010, p.311). Although they are used in both crown court trials and civil cases, the introduction of the Administration of Justice Act 1933 has reduced the use of juries in civil cases significantly (Joyce 2013, p.208). However, they are only used in about one third of cases in the Crown Court (Huxley-Binns and Martin, p.220). Since the 19th Century, the statutory provisions for jury service have been amended and revised considerably resulting in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Throughout this essay I will be firstly discussing who is eligible to sit on a
Juries exists in the criminal trial to listen to the case presented to them and, as a third, non-bias party, decide beyond reasonable doubt if the accused is guilty. For the use of a trial by juror to be effective, no bias should exists in the jurors judgments, the jurors should understand clearly their role and key legal terms, and the jury system should represent the communities standards and views whilst upholding the rights of the accused and society and remain cost and time effective.
In the Canadian Charters of Rights and Freedoms (1982) under section 11, it is stated that a person that has been charged with a criminal offence, has the right to a trial by jury. For many years jury trials have been under constant criticism in regards to the jury’s inability to adequately perform the responsibilities entrusted to them. Many studies have been performed looking into the jury selection process, jury bias, pre-trial publicity exposure and attitudes/personality of a juror, in order to increase the jury’s abilities to perform their responsibilities to present a fair trial. In the case People v. Weatherton (2014), the inappropriate behaviour of a jury member lead to a legal dispute regarding the final verdict. This behaviour lead to a lengthy investigation with the final decision, made by the Supreme Court of California, to reverse the guilty verdict. As a member of the jury, it is important to understand the responsibilities one must uphold while deciding whether a person is guilty or not guilty.
The criminal trial process is an interesting process that takes place in Courtrooms all across the United States and throughout the globe. This study intends to set out the various steps in the criminal trial process in the American justice system. A trial is described as a "legal forum for resolving individual disputes, and in the case of a criminal charge, it is a means for establishing whether an accused person is legally guilty of an offense. The trial process varies with respect to whether the matter at issue is civil in nature or criminal. In either case, a jury acts as a fact-finding body for the court in assessing information and evidence that is presented by the respective parties in a case. A judge presides over the court and addresses all the legal issues that arise during the trial. A judge also instructs the jury how to apply the facts to the laws that will govern in a given case." (3rd Judicial District, 2012)
Frank, M. (2011). Challenging Peremptories: Suggested Reforms to the Jury Selection Process Using Minnesota as a Case Study. In review.law.umm.edu. Retrieved November 29, 2014, from http://review.law.umn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Frank_MLR.pdf
Between this time and November 3rd 1994 the jury of 12 was selected out of a venire of 304 perspective jurors. All 304 perspective juror’s had a seventy five page questionnaire to complete to determine eligibility for the trial. Both the prosecuting and defending teams set out to present their case. The trial lasted 134 days in 1995 and is renowned for the media coverage from inside
Have you ever been to a trial or have you seen a trial on the television? Have you ever saw that group of people that were sitting in a box? Or have you ever heard someone say they have to go do jury duty? You may wondered what jury duty is. Well jury duty is service as a member of a jury in a court of law. You may say well what is a jury? A jury is a body of people sworn to give to give a verdict in a legal case on the basis of evidence submitted to them in court. In this paper we will talk about three counties and how their jury system goes. And if they don’t have one we will talk about what they do for their judicial system. Jury system makes the court’s trial easier and fair.
The assigned reading this week by Doob, A. & Kirshenbaum, H., Singall, H. & Ostrove, N., Diamond, S., and Mook, D., discussed different aspects of jury research. Doob & Kirshenbaum (1973), as well as Singall & Ostrove (1975) wrote experimental research papers where they examined a jury's decisions and point of view when it comes to determining a defendants guilt. One discussed this in the terms of whether a jury can determine creditability, and not guilt, based on a defendants past criminal history; while the other considered whether beauty interferes with a jury's decision for a defendant to receive a more lenient or harsher punishment. With these, the paper by Diamond (1997) explained how jury research usually lacks certain characteristics that make these experiments unreliable. Mook (1983) took another standpoint and discussed how things like naturalness of the experiment and generalizability cannot determine reliable results, and that a lack of a real life settings can sometimes produce stronger results.
The Selection and Role of a Jury in a Criminal Trial This assignment focuses on how a jury is selected and its role in a