Jury System Dbq

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.”

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.

Some could argue that this case illustrates the failure of the jury system. Despite all the evidence pointing to the guilt of the defendant,

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.

We should not have a professional jury system because it simply doesn't work for our government system. If we were to have a professional jury system, jurors would be biased, lazy and experiences with past cases would interfere. Although there would be different jurors with different histories on a panel, Jurors would be biased because they would all have the same education telling them what is right and wrong. The same textbook would be deciding whether a person is guilty, or not guilty. Another circumstance where a juror would be biased is race. If a white male were to be convicting and black male, it could easily fly under the radar that the white male juror is holding a grudge. Many black males and minorities would be discriminated against

The jury is seen as the ultimate protection of the people against potentially oppressive power of the state. Randomly selected jurors are actively involved in the administration of justice after an agent of the state has made a criminal allegation against an individual. The reasons for a jury verdict are intentionally kept secret by law and because this is done here is very little public scrutiny of the effectiveness of the jury system. The reason I believe that juries should be compelled to give reasons for their verdicts is that a person who is about to lose their freedoms from a jury conviction should be entitles to know the reason to be sure the verdict was based on law and sound logic. An accused person could have

Jurors in our current system have inconsistencies because they either have little experience or are easily

At this point in our lives we’ve all probably had jury duty, in fact some of us have probably served on a jury. I was selected to serve on a jury the very first time I went to jury duty. I found the whole process very interesting. It’s definitely not as exciting as it appears on television and in movies. I don’t remember a lot of rules being discussed regarding the actual verdict. We sat through all of the testimonies. There was no evidence to present. Just one person’s word against the other. Then we all went back to the room and discussed our thoughts. Everyone felt that the defendant was not guilty except me. It was a very weird feeling. Once people made their points I started to come to their side, but I didn’t like the whole process. Why did we all have to agree? Why did we get to know what each one of us voted? I eventually concluded that there wasn’t enough evidence to convict so I also agreed to a not guilty verdict in the end. I didn’t like the peer pressure that I felt in that situation or the fact that if we didn’t agree we would be considered a hung jury. The pressure that a jury must be unanimous for a verdict to be declared causes many mistrials that could otherwise be avoided saving everyone time and money.

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

I believe our present jury system is satisfactory the way it is and should not be altered in any way. Legal personnel already know when the laws are updated, so making a change would not do anything but cause confusion among the public (Terrill, 2016). If the United States has been abiding the United States Constitution since the mid 1700’s, there is no need to alter it now (Hans & Vidmar, n.d.). As stated by Hans & Vidmar (n.d.), “The Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the U.S. Constitution guarantee the right to a jury for all criminal cases and in all civil suits exceeding twenty dollars” (para. 1). The jury has a panel of peers who are chosen from the community to serve on jury duty. These prospective jurors come from a list of registered

Serving on a jury is a civic duty and an American tradition. However, some people view jury duty as a chore or as an event that negatively interrupts their lives. Some independent studies have shown that even jury duty has a devastating effect on married life. Due to this and other extraneous situations, there are only a few people who actually want to serve on a jury. This may lead to efforts by potential jurors to, in some way get out of their duty in a jury. What we know of as the current jury duty system should be changed so citizens are not forced to serve in this capacity and can still be regarded as a responsible civilian. As per the status quo, a trial jury is a constitutional right, a jury of ones peers or equals. However,

The right to a trial by jury is a core element of the United States Criminal Justice System. This right is guaranteed to all citizens by the highest law of the land: The United States Constitution. But are juries truly an effective means of securing justice? The movie 12 Angry Men provides commentary on this question with its portrayal of twelve jurors deliberating over a murder case. The jury initially seems bound to condemn the defendant, a young man of nineteen years, to the electric chair, but a single man, Juror no. 8 descents against the majority. Over the course of the film, tensions rise, and after much debate Juror no. 8 manages to convince the other eleven jurors to eventually vote not guilty. Through their debates and casual side conversations, we are shown the role of personal biases and group manipulation tactics that can impede with objective analysis and ultimately the attainment of justice. Thus, the Movie 12 Angry Men mostly serves to challenge the jury system as a means of securing justice by demonstrating the harmful effects of personal biases, the lack of dedication to the system, and the potential for manipulative tactics.

One reason why I think the jury system is still a good thing to use during a court case is that, normal citizens get called to a trial, decide on a case, and try to persuade the judge about whether or not the defendant is guilty or innocent. Another good thing is that none of the reasoning is biased, which means all of the facts/reasoning the jury members are giving isn’t opinionated. People that have observed jury systems say that it has remarked the ability to help ordinary citizens into self-governors and get involved in civic participation. The trial by jury process puts the people in control. The people have ultimate control in the legislative and executive branches. (Doc C)

This essay will be looking at the advantages and disadvantages of the jury trial. Jury trial is a legal proceeding where a jury makes a decision, which then direct the actions of a judge. The members of a jury are a group of independent citizens. They have no interest in the case before them, nor is their judgment coloured by regular experience of the business of the court. They are “twelve individuals, often with no prior contact with the courts, who are chosen at random to listen to evidence and decide upon matters affecting the reputation and liberty of those charged with criminal offences.” The jury has always been drawn from sections of society but has been made democratic only in the last half century. And now almost all citizen of the United Kingdom are eligible to serve on a jury. But the percentage of criminal cases actually tried by jury is surprisingly low. Nowadays “the magistrates’ courts deal with at least 95 per cent of criminal cases. In practice juries determine the outcome of less than 1 per cent of the total of the criminal cases.” But still the idea of trial by jury has always been seen as a “cornerstone of the English legal system” , and it remains the standard mode of trial for dealing with the most serious types of criminal case. But even though it is established and been in practice for years, people seem to believe that there are disadvantages to jury trails. Nonetheless, the jury system is becoming increasingly controversial. Critics claim that

First and foremost, the jury system can only exist when there is litigation. As stated by Lau, T. & Johnson, L. (2011), litigation is “a lawsuit filed in court to determine liability and remedies”. It is therefore needless to have the jury system if there is not any existence of litigation. The U.S jury system which is the selection of citizens to help in determining the outcome of a lawsuit can be very effective if those involve are credible and have a good knowledge of the law. Bringing individuals who are not knowledgeable can make the system flaw. The U.S jury system can be very effective