Essay On Jury Members

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.

I do not believe that the way the jury is selected and the way it operates is the correct way to do it. I believe this due to the fact that not much is known about the people who are selected and that they have no experience in Law. This means that they might not understand the case and they could even be a bit biased.

You brought up how jurors are more likely to find a defendant guilty when the defendant is a different race, and the victim is the same race as the juror, which creates a problem if race is being viewed as a primary factor in the case. Unfortunately, as we know, racial disparities are apparent throughout every phase of our justice system. For example, black individuals are three times as likely to have their cars searched by the police compared to their white counterparts, in addition to being more likely to be pulled over (Racial disparities, 2014). On a larger scale, racial disparities in sentencing decisions are also imposed much more harshly for black individuals than white individuals in the United States. Furthermore, black males in the

Race is one of the most controversial topics when speaking of bias, and still to this day race is occasionally believed to sway the judicial system’s decisions. A recent statistic proved that less than 5 years ago in North Carolina more than 52% of potential black jurors were cut, or peremptory challenged, meaning they removed from a case without reason (S.M.). Not only do jurors experience discrimination but suspects on trial have also suffered for decades. Evidence shows judges sentence black convicts to 20%

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

A present day trial court such as state-level courts or the United States supreme court will hear many cases of civil and criminal actions. They are often a long, drug out process that takes several days, weeks, and sometimes months to find an outcome. There are many laws in place to assure rights to the accused such as amendments not allowing cruel or unusual punishment and appointing an attorney for the suspect if he or she can not afford one. In the case of Socrates back in 400B.C, he did not have this luxury. He was forced to try to prove his own innocence against the 3 prosecutors and his punishment was extreme considering his so called crimes.

Sommers, S. (2009, January 1). On the Obstacles to Jury Diversity. In www.thejuryepert.com. Retrieved November 29, 2014, from

First, a good juror would need to be not racist, or sexist, because it would make the system more fair. On page 16 juror 10 states that “You can’t believe a word they say.” When you put a certain person with a group of people, and label it “them or they” you are most likely against them. Also on page 16, juror 9 states against juror 10 stating, “What a terrible thing for a man to believe! Since when is dishonesty a group characteristic?” Defending the accused, and the rest of the jury from his statement. In conclusion, with no racism or sexism in America’s criminal justice system, everything

Racial disparity in the sentencing process of the criminal justice system also exists because of racial jurors. To eliminate the suspensions of racial disparity of racial jurors the jury will select at least one African-American to serve for the jury. A percentage of African-Americans oppose capital punishment (Tabak, 1999, p. 6). Prosecutors commonly discriminate against African-Americans during challenges of discretions and blatantly abuse the powers of prosecutors. Juries predominantly use more Whites in every trial is inappropriate on the levels of the criminal justice system. Americans have rights to a trial by jury of peers and has the right not to exclude minorities in the selection of a jury. Excluding minorities in a jury of an individual’s peers is a violation of an objective and fair trial for a defendant.

(Introduction)The Seventh Amendment, to the United States Constitution, says that we have a right to a fair trial by jury,(Logos) but what if that jury is fraudulent?(Hook/Anaphora) The jury system has, and is, an essential part of our judicial system.(Hyperbole) The purpose of a jury system is to insinuate democracy, by having multiple people determine the outcome. Without the jury system, trials would be tyrannously determined. However, the jury system can, and has been corrupted before.

As the young generation of this country, it is our responsibility to take care of it as are predecessors have. In order to do that we must keep up on current events and have a clear understanding of the way our country, our community, and our world operate. This includes staying up to date with events in our country, such as presidential elections and natural disasters. I get many questions as to why I follow this year’s presidential election, because I don’t vote. It is because I care about our country and I feel it is my responsibility as a citizen to know what my country is going through.

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

"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.

Having a diverse bench is critical to having a successful criminal justice system. The United States court system follows a presumption of innocence, meaning those who enter a courtroom are presumed innocent until proven guilty. This presumption of innocence is not always found in the courtroom. Every courtroom actor, whether consciously or unconsciously, has a bias towards the defendant and may even presume guilt before the case begins. This is especially true when there is a white judge acting on cases involving a defendant who is a part of the minority. Judges who represent the minority are not only unbiased towards defendants of their own race, but they also bring new perspectives to the bench (Haire & Moyer, 2015). They present ideas, understandings, and

Ignorance and racism are seeded deep within the nooks and crannies of our society. While it may not be visible at first glance I can assure you, it is engraved in the back of the brains of a portion of our population. A literary example of such behavior can be found in Twelve Angry Men, By Reginald Rose. The book is set in a jury room where 12 men debate the innocence or guilt of a teenage boy accused of murdering his father. However, one of the Jurors (Juror 10) has racist beliefs that greatly affect the debate. Should men like Juror 10 be on a jury?