Pros And Cons Of 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.”

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.

One reason why jury trials shouldn’t be an option is because jurors are incompetent. The cartoon of Document E isn’t just humorous, it’s also pretty true. Jurors are forced

In conclusion we should keep the jury system just find a better way to question potential jurors. Citizens should have the right to serve in jury duty and decide whether a fellow citizen is guilty or innocent. This will give the citizens and their family a peace knowing that a criminal was proven guilty. Since the jury system has been intact for so long they should just make some minor changes. These minor changes would not only help the citizens but the community as

The jury system is an old institution, predating England’s Magna Carta. Its essence in providing checks and balances, and allowing fair trial by peers is virtuous. Granting juries the power and discretion we do, expresses our trust in an institution that is fundamental to our vision of democratic governance, and our confidence that jury verdicts can be impartial, and accurate. The vital role in which the jury plays in

Juries allow and force the public to have a personal knowledge of court proceedings, protect against the bias of a single person, and provide the public with certainty that there is not corruption in our judicial system. No human system of justice is perfect, but I believe that what Benjamin Franklin said regarding the Constitution also applies to our jury system, “It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does” (Benjamin Franklin to the Federal Convention).

The jury system and how it works is crucial to sentencing and how cases are solved. Most criminal trials require twelve jurors. The reason it’s done this way is because it’s believed that the more people there are exercising their own perception and judgement it leads to a greater chance of a fair

Pope Innocent III “ forbade priestly involvement in ordeals—thus taking away their holy sanction [and] in 1215, a jury system was loosely in place in Norman England. In this system, the king’s court chose twelve persons to testify as to what they knew about the facts of a case or the character of the parties involved” (The American Trial Jury). Since its establishment in 1215, problems have arisen regarding the jury system across the world. Foremost, the rise of technology engendered unjust trials and biased jurors in the 1950s, during the Sam Sheppard case. The news media released the names and telephone numbers of the jurors involved in the case and they encouraged local citizens to call the, to voice their opinions during a trial, and therefore the jury was not isolated from media outlets (The American Trial Jury). Race also generates dilemmas with the jury system, like in the case of Keith Tharpe. Woefully, he was on trial for murder and convicted solely because of a racist juror who referred to him as a derogatory name for blacks (A Black Man Convicted By a Racist Juror is About To Be Executed). Likewise, the jury system is flawed due to a rise in juror misconduct. In the year 2009, during the court case United States v. Bristol-Martir, a juror conducted illicit research on the case and was subsequently disqualified as a result of her immoral actions (Saltzburg, Dealing With Juror

In today’s society of law it is preferable to have a jury trial than a bench trial. For many reasons a jury trial is preferable than a bench trial because there are 12 mind's that decide if the defendant is guilty or not. The defendant only needs one juror to save their life because it would be a hung jury. The jurors need to be 12 to zero to have the defendant guilty or not guilty. It is easier to have a jury a trial than a bench trial because in a bench trial the defendant has to look like they did the crime while in a jury trial 12 jurors are hearing the testimony and they could decide from there if the defendant is guilty or not. All the jurors need is a reasonable doubt to say the defendant is not guilty while the bench trial the judge

The current jury system in America is unfortunately corrupt because of unprofessional jurors that are the deciding factor for cases. The “jury of our peers” system does not promote fair justice and it should be replaced with a new system of professional jurors. The current system allows random, unqualified individuals to make irresponsible decisions for our government. If unqualified jurors were replaced with professional jurors, our system would become successful. A professional system of jurors is an efficient way for justice to be decided because the current system allows jurors to be uneducated on law, inconsistent with experience, and bias based on their opinions.

The history in England and Europe was of people being sentenced to lengthy prison terms, tortured or even killed in secret trials. If you were accused in this situation, you often had no chance to defend yourself and the charges were often trumped up to eliminate political and religious dissent. By requiring a jury to be involved in a trial, serious and sometimes fatal decisions are taken out of the hands of one or a few judges, and are put into the hands of a group of average citizens who look over the evidence. This greatly reduces the possibility of corruption in the trial. For many years, all juries in America had twelve people, which is how juries were conducted during the time the Constitution was written. Eventually, though, the Supreme Court reduced the allowable size of juries in state trials down to a minimum of six. Federal trials must still have twelve jurors. The Court also removed the requirement that juries be unanimous in their decisions in state courts. Instead, 10-2 or 9-3 verdicts are now accepted. Federal court juries, however, must be unanimous.

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 heart of the American Judicial System is the determination of the innocence or guilt of the accused. At the beginning of the play, the jurors all feel that the man is guilty for murdering his father and they all wanted to convict him without carrying out a detailed discussion. The persistence of juror eight, however, plays a significant role in ensuring that the correct and fair verdict is delivered. The judicial system maintains that the defendant does not have an obligation to prove his innocence. The fact is not clear to everyone as Juror 8 reminds Juror 2 about it. The fact is a key element of the judicial system and assists in the process of coming up with a verdict. The defendant is usually innocent until proven guilty. Another element of the judicial system that comes out in the play is for a verdict to stand it must be unanimous. Unanimity ensures that the

A jury is a group of 12 people aged between 18 and 70 who have been randomly selected from the electoral roll. Juries are only used for indictable criminal offences, these cases are held in either the District or Supreme court.

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.