Dbq Essay On The Jury System

The jury system has been used in the criminal trial since the Constitution stated “the trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury.”

He seems to be implying that the jury did their job and did not speculate (or believe in “science fiction”) beyond the facts. • 4. Some could argue that this case shows just how well the jury system works. The fact that the jurors were not swayed by all the negative media coverage and the rights of the criminally accused are protected. Document D analysis • 5.

In the book, Twelve Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, the reader gets a demonstration of the jury system, with all its flaws and its positives. In this informal essay, I will show some of the positives and negatives of the jury system. After this analysis, you will see that the jury system is flawed, due to people like Juror 7. Juror 7’s attitude and beliefs are a prime example of how the jury system can have negative consequences.

In the United States, we let the people decide – not who the president will be, though. We let everyday people decide whether or not someone is guilty of a crime. The jury system has been around for ages (dating back hundreds of years in England) and probably will be for a long time. But is the system still working? Is it worth it? Should we continue to use juries to decide cases? The jury system shouldn’t remain an option because jurors tend to be incompetent, it’s not really worth the effort, and jurors aren’t professionally educated to decide on these cases.

Juries are embedded in the foundation of America. Preceding the revolution, trials were dictated solely by judges, which led to flawed rulings. After numerous taxes were passed in court in the colonist’s favor, the American Revolution had its start, and would continue until the United States became a recognized nation. In this nation, a right to trial by jury was granted and protected by the Constitution. The significance of this decision is seen in the courtroom, where the people’s vote is what stands between the government.

Today we are here to speak upon todays Jury system and how it can be improved or should we have it removed. Well I'm here to tell you my side. I think jury duty at this point should be eliminated and done for because its has more convicted, its random people you can say with no experience on handling a situation like this with a “criminal” they don't know how to assess the situation at hand like if you were to go with the bench, and also some of the jurors don't even pay attention to the case they are there because they have to. In the jury system there has been more cases than in the bench for the year 2010.

While evaluating the advantages of a plea jury I found that a plea jury would be under the supervision of the courts and the defendant would give his plea to a guilty plea jury (Appleman, 2010). The plea jury would then decide on the facts to see if the allegations fit the offense, whether the plea was knowing and voluntary and if the sentence proposed is appropriate for the offense. Also, I found that a plea jury’s critical role would be to listen to the defendant’s allocutions instead of explaining his offenses to the judge.

Ever since the beginning of our country’s existence we have had this idea that every single person, despite whatever crime they had committed, were citizens regardless. Those citizens have rights, those rights included being innocent until proven guilty, and having the right to a trial by jury. We have fought to protect that last right particularly hard, however, only a very small percentage of cases these days are even seen by juries. So, is a trial by Jury really worth it? Or is it better to have a trial by a single judge? One might be led to think that a bench trial, or trial by judge, is the better option due to the extremely low volume of jury trials. However, that is not the case. Jury trials are better because they are less biased, they are more accurate, and they are fairer than bench trials.

Juries specifically in the United States serve a very large political significance. Majority of the time they determine the fate of those on trial. Juries are used to protect the rights of the people and work hand in hand with the judge to determine the outcome of cases to the best of their ability. Working hand in hand means the Judge determines what laws are applied to each specific case, while the jury works to decide on the facts. Jurors are held to a high degree due to the fact they must focus on fact, remain impartial, and be honest. Very much power is given to juries in the court of law which in turn shows that large political significance juries hold. While juries hold a large significance politically, one of arguably their strongest weapons is the use of jury nullification. Jury nullification refers to right of juries to nullify, or refuse to apply law in criminal cases despite facts that support a finding that the law was violated. It is an extremely powerful component of law because a defendant could have all the facts and evidence pointing to their guilt, but if the jury feels a certain way about a law or situation, then they have the right to pass on all the facts presented and acquit a defendant that in most cases would be found guilty. Also they could use if they found a specific law being applied to the defendant as an unjust law or the way a law is applied. But largely in the past, specifically during the Jim Crow era, it was used as a way to acquit those

There are two very strong opinions towards jurors here in the United States. The first group have the people who believe that jury nullification is vital to our legal system to allow the average American to have their voice heard through the legal system, like Americans did with Prohibition. I would call this side the John Adams side of the debate, putting faith within our legal system and citizens. Adams once said that jurors are obligated to vote grounded on their “own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” This is a country for the people and by the people and for that to be true, jury nullification is needed especially when America has a history of using courtrooms as a social issue playground. Many people would find this side favorable because it aligns with many different moral theories.

As seen in the chart jury trials tend to have more criminal convictions. The bench trials seem to be more spread out (Document A). Bench trials are presented in front of judges. Judges have a better understanding of the law so they tend to listen to the facts rather than making a decision based on what they may think. In the image of the jury in court with speech bubbles the artist portrays the idea that those on the jury do not pay attention to what is going on. When it comes to the time jurors make a half-hearted decision. Jonny Hawkins agrees when she writes, “We, the jury, find the defendant to be as guilty as he looks’” (Document E). Instead of giving a reasonable cause to defend why the jury considers him guilty the jury defines him guilty for his looks. The image displays a nervous man meaning he could be hesitant with the verdict, which represents that the man is probably hesitant; knowing the verdict is inaccurate poses the juror's thoughts and that society creates an image where someone has multiple tattoos or looks aggressive then it must mean they are a convict. “‘It doesn’t look good’” (Document E). Hemispheres point is to present that the convicted and those on the jury are strangers not knowing anything about one another. The cartoon sets an example of multiple cats as the jury and the convicted is a dog. This gives the impression that the jury dislikes the

In considering the effectiveness of the jury system, it is first necessary to understand the roles of juries. Primarily, a jury is a body of legally unqualified citizens who agree on a verdict based on evidence

The Jury Selection Procedure in the English Legal System The theory behind modern day trial by jury can be traced back some

"Today, jurors sometimes leave courtrooms in tears after convicting people they believed were morally (if not legally) innocent, or after witnessing the harsh sentences handed down by judges at the sentencing phase of seemingly minor cases. That is exactly the sort of travesty trial by jury was intended to prevent. If the law were just and justly applied, jurors would have no reason to regret their verdicts, or the sentences that are meted out later by judges." (Trial by Jury Website) This would seemingly encourage the American judicial system to adapt the jury system to meet the needs of our current American society. It is unpleasant for the jurors to make very hard choices concerning the lives of other fellow citizens. It is also hard for the persons who are standing trial to know that their fate is going to rest with people with little or no knowledge of the law.

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.