Essay about The Right to a Free Trial

The Sixth Amendment provides that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a(n) speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.

The classic 1957 movie 12 Angry Men delves in to a panel of twelve jurors who are deciding the life or death fate of an eighteen year old italian boy accused of stabbing his father to death. The twelve men selected as jurors are a diverse group, each coming to the table with their own socioeconomic backgrounds, personal experiences, prejudice’s, and all of this plays a role in the jurors attitudes and/or misconceptions of the accused young man. How each of the jurors, all but Juror Eight played by Henry Fonda, experiences and personalities impact their original vote of guilty is clear at the beginning of the movie with the first vote. However, from the start, Juror Eight displays confidence, and demonstrates leadership abilities utilizing

America is built on the foundation of society being run and well-flowing around the three values the Republic of the United States hold most dear to: equality, freedom, and justice. The rights of the accused is an important factor in maximizing justice. Amendments 4-8 in the Bill of Rights specifically detail how criminal law should be dealt with, and how justice can be ensured every step of the way. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments contain two systems that go hand in hand with one another, a due process and a trial by jury for all citizens. Amendments 4-8, a Due Process, and a Trial by Jury are essential for establishing the rights of the accused and their absence would be detrimental to the effectiveness of the American criminal justice system.

The sixth amendment is the right to an impartial trial and the exclusion of a juror for certain reasons like race, gender, or sexual orientation violates that right. Everyone has the right to have a fair trial with the right jurors because ultimately they are determining how you might be spending the rest of your life.

Looking at this dilemma from a more neutral viewpoint, there seems to be some holes in both arguments. The Right to Try Laws simply evade FDA entanglement, yet do not require drug companies to provide access to terminal patients. This is a problem due to the fear that drug companies have of the FDA, as their compliance to the Right to Try Laws could damage their relationship with the FDA. To compensate for this, the FDA has altered their paperwork to request Compassionate Use. A negative outcome in Right to Try Laws may result in the abandonment of further research dedicated to the drug, or future trials (Caplan). This could harm potential patients of the future through abandoning a drug that could have been a cure developed in a clinical trial. While the FDA can deny or accept whatever claims they desire, their decision could affect more than they realize. “The FDA may approve or shut down programs, such as expanded access programs (EAPs) through which multiple patients may access an experimental drug. The FDA would record this as one decision” (Caplan). Discovering this hidden fact took some digging. It is interesting that in the statistics of the FDA, they could consider the shutdown of a trial helping many people only one single denied request. In addition, throughout this research, there has been conflicting numbers of those denied and admitted access to clinical trials or Compassionate Use on every source. This has thrown into question the reliability of sources available to the public. The medical journal

Often, forty or fifty people will be summoned for a 12 person jury. The process of selecting who will make up the jury is called voir dire, which involves getting rid of potential jurors who would not be fair or impartial. Prosecutors and defense attorneys can strike for cause a potential juror for several reasons, such as bias or prejudice, an unlimited number of times. They also have a limited number of peremptory challenges, which allows them to get rid of a juror without needing to have a valid reason to do so. Once all challenges the attorneys can utilize have been exhausted, the judge will assemble the petit jury and will generally select alternate jurors as

If someone holds bias in a jury, an innocent person may be found guilty. So the by sixth amendment stating this right, furthers the claim that it is the most important

According to the Law Dictionary, “impartial jury applies to a jury which hears a case with no prejudice and will give a fair verdict” (n.d.). The phrase a jury of one's peers is not included in this Amendment however. Despite this, the courts interpret peer to mean equal, and in doing so, the jury pool must include a cross-section of the population of the community in terms of gender, race, and national origin. The jury selection process must not eliminate or intentionally narrow down the jury to any particular group of people which is where impartial jury comes into play. Race and gender are not factors in determining eligibility to serve as a juror. However, specifics questions are asked about these demographics to assure there is a proper racial and gender balance among

The Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution, a section of the Bill of Rights, gives the privilege to a jury trial in certain common cases, and authorizes that cases may not be considered by another court. The rights individuals are ensured are that their trial will be similarly as reasonable as anyone else and that they will be allowed to demonstrate their honesty without a predisposition, whether reasonable or unreasonable.

The Sixth Amendment of the United States states “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense (CRS Annotated Constitution, n.d.).” The Sixth Amendment offers seven rights to everyone; (1) a speedy trial; (2) a public trial; (3) an unbiased jury; (4) told the charges against him/her; (5) able to confront those against him/her; (6) able to provide a witness in his/her favor; (7) right to lawful guidance. The Sixth Amendment is extremely important because it protects the rights of those being accused with criminal charges. It ensures that the process of conviction is done fairly and no one is deprived of their rights and unfairly charged.

First Amendment rights are like an antique; they have been around for a while, and people will treasure them for years to come. Americans have valued First Amendment rights since the constitution was written, and still do to this day. As well as valuing them, Americans are also willing to fight for their rights; whether it is by going to court, picketing, or protesting. As a result of this willingness to fight, we have seen many court cases and protests about First Amendment rights, and will likely continue to see these for a long time.

America is the universal symbol of freedom. But is it really free? Does the history of the United States stay true to the ideas of our forefathers? Or has the definition been altered to fit American policies? Has freedom defined America? Or has America defined freedom? I believe America was at first defined by freedom, then after time, America defined freedom, altering the definition to fit the niche it fits in, but still keeping key components so it still seems to be staying true to the ideas of America’s founding fathers.

The jury represents the voice of the people, regardless, juries are ethnically un-diverse, consist heavily of certain age groups and members of certain socioeconomic statuses. To ensure better representativeness, two specific reforms can be implemented. First, making avoiding jury duty more difficult. The list of excuses in the Act can be reduced to achieve this. Additionally, the reforms must address the racial diversity in juries. According to Israel, parties are likely to attempt to exclude Indigenous and other ethnic minorities from in the selection process (1998). However, for the jury to represent the voice of the people it must be racially diverse, as Australia is a very multicultural country. As a result, a possible reform is making it more difficult for the parties to object to certain jurors. To rectify the issue of a lack of competence in juries, a solution is to expand the kinds of cases that a judge-only trials. At present, for example, complicated tax and fraud cases require a judge-only trial. A reform is to make it possible for further kinds of cases to be added. An alternative reform is to allow an independent lawyer to explain issues to the jury outside of court sessions, rather than relying on the judges’ instructions alone. The lawyer could identify any misunderstandings and correct them. Overall, it is necessary for reforms to be put in place to address

From the beginning, the United States Constitution has guaranteed the American people civil liberties. These liberties have given citizens rights to speak, believe, and act freely. The Constitution grants citizens the courage to express their mind about something they believe is immoral or unjust. The question is, how far are citizens willing to extend the meanings of these liberties? Some people believe that American citizens take advantage of their civil liberties, harming those around them. On the contrary, many other people feel that civil liberties are necessary tools to fight for their Constitutional rights.

of us fail to cherish and value our granted freedom. Many of us do not