Essay On Jury Members

The rest of the jury realized the boy’s race was not a fact of the matter. The condition the boy was raised was not completely certain but as the jury even walked through every witness’s perspective; they were attempting to be as realistic as possible. The 10th juror was a racist but his perspective was useful nonetheless by teaching a lesson. This responsible approach resulted from an impartial jury with different perspectives and in law reviews such as, “Diversity and the Civil Jury”; it is made clear just how legal and important impartial juries can be. “The right to an impartial jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community has mostly been expounded upon in the context of the Sixth Amendment's right to a jury trial in criminal cases, but has been applied to civil cases as well.’ In order to ensure that juries serve “as instruments of public justice,” this requirement is designed to create “a body truly representative of the community” (Carbone 840). America is very diverse so it makes sense that a jury should reflect such a mixed society and leave racism at the door.

"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.

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?

Inside a room where life or death decisions are made, twelve men sit with wandering thoughts. The made up minds of some jurors are to send a boy to his death without a second thought, but one other juror may change that. Inside of the play Twelve Angry Men written by Reginald Rose, Juror 8 has the persuasive evidence to change the minds of his fellow Jurors and save a boy from his execution. The other Juror’s seem like they won’t budge with their mind set on the decision of guilty, but after Juror 8 proves his thoughts on the decision of innocent, he may just be able to save a young life.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

(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.

Jury tampering is when there is attempted influence on the decisions of a jury during the course of a trial; this is a crime. It could be when jurors are intimidated or bribed into performing in a certain manner while on duty. In the United Kingdom, non-jury trials are allowed under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 when there is risk of jury tampering. Reform of The Jury Despite its historical role in the English Legal System and the almost sacred place it occupies in the public imagination, the jury has come under increasing attack in recent years.

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