America's Jury System

The Founding Fathers wanted the people of the United States to be in a democracy or self-government and established the jury system into the constitution. It is expensive and is a long process to start a jury trial. Also, jurors are not as professional as judges and can not determine a fair verdict. The Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) effect might also affect the verdict of the jury. The American jury system should not be used because of it not being cost-effective, the lack of experience of the jury, which leads to justice not being served, and the CSI effect impacting the

The original text of the amendment did not specify a particular size for a jury, but it did state that the accused had the right to a trial "by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed. "Over time, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued several decisions related to the size of the jury. In 1898, the Court ruled in Thompson v. Utah that a jury of eight was sufficient in a criminal trial. However, in 1970, the Court ruled in Williams v. Florida that a six-person jury was constitutional. Later, in 1979, the Court upheld the use of six-person juries in state criminal trials in Ballew v. Georgia.

2. example 1 Firstly Ordinary people may not understand complex legal technicalities, these people may not be educated in the concept of law and maybe not even educated properly. Some people may have been educated in a completely different field and have no idea what any of the case means. This could cause the jury to loose interest and just go with what everyone else is saying because they have no idea what is going on. A lot of society have no idea about the legal requirements and what actually is right and wrong and what an offence actually is.

Another reason citizens question juries is that they have bias from personal experience or the media. The defendant and the prosecution criticize the jury system because the actual jurors may not understand the situation from any point of view because they come from different lifestyles (Doc E). The American jury system is not a good idea anymore because juries are not experts in law, they have bias, and are not “a jury of peers”. Because jurors are not experts in law, they are subject to be

Guilty or not guilty, all citizens deserve a thorough trial to defend their rights. Formulating coherent stories from events and circumstances almost cost a young boy his life. In Twelve Angry Men, 1957, a single juror did his duty to save the life of an 18 year old boy by allowing his mind to rationalize the cohesive information presented by the court and its witnesses. The juror’s name was Mr. Davis, he was initially the only one of 12 jurors to vote not guilty in reason that the young boy, sentenced with first degree murder, may be innocent. I am arguing that system 1 negatively affects the jurors opinion on the case and makes it difficult for Mr. Davis to convince the other jurors of reasonable doubt.

There are .58% of criminal cases that get sent to trial by jury (Doc A). This evidence helps explain why jury trials should not still be an option because even though you might have a better chance with trial by jury but on a very small percentage of people actually are able to get tried by jury's. This pretty much means that you don't really have a trial by jury because of how many people won't get the chance for trial by

In the article of Connect US “… prosecutors and defendants to have limited removal power over the formation of the jury so that it can seem fair to both sides in the case. ”(Chief, Editor) This makes it where both parties have some leeway to either stay with the chosen jury or replace someone if they feel that it will be biased for one side. Also having a trial by jury highly eliminates bias because of the twelve people, which makes it harder if a jury to make everyone vote guilty or not guilty. It’s important to know someone’s background and what condition they are in before being given an important task such as jury duty since they are contributing to either putting someone behind the bar or releasing them back to society, in the article Connect US, “…Judges and lawyers have the opportunity to question each one to see if they can be fair and impartial.”

Citizen Required To Serve? Jury a group of citizens sworn to give a verdict in a legal case on the basis of evidence submitted to them in court. Being able to serve on a jury is an absolute privilege to do for some and one thing that makes this country very different and unique from others. Serving on a jury should not be required for citizens. Some people believe serving on a jury should be a requirement for every citizen.

Foreman (Juror 1): He is an assistant football coach at a High School. Elected as the foreman of the jury, he has the responsibility to keep the jury process organized. Although he is not particularly bright, he is dogged. Initially, he struggled to keep up with his authority. Eventually, he managed to weight to his authority as the foreman as well as his opinions.

Imagine getting that one dreaded letter in the mail, calling you to do the one thing you didn’t plan the week before your wedding, JURY DUTY. Reginald Rose wrote the play Twelve Angry Men for a television drama after he sat on a jury. The characters in this play are identified not by names but by numbers. Twelve men are confined to a deliberation room after the trial of a 19-year-old boy accused of stabbing and killing his father. Twelve Angry Men illustrates the many dangers of the jury system like, a biased jury, being left with questions, and feeling inconvenienced by jury duty.

Twelve Angry Men is in many ways a love letter to the American legal justice system. We find here eleven men, swayed to conclusions by prejudices, past experience, and short-sightedness, challenged by one man who holds himself and his peers to a higher standard of justice, demanding that this marginalized member of society be given his due process. We see the jurors struggle between the two, seemingly conflicting, purposes of a jury, to punish the guilty and to protect the innocent. It proves, however, that the logic of the American trial-by-jury system does work.

What if one day, twenty years from now you were chosen to discuss the fate of an eighteen year old boy. What would you do? Would you take your job and do it responsibly, or would you do it like some of the Jurors in 12 Angry Men and blow it off so you can finish early and leave. Even though there was a lot of controversy in that jury room, I noticed that Jurors 3,7, and 9 used their personalities, beliefs, and views of their responsibilities to bring the boy on trial to justice. This very excitable juror is the last to change his vote, and while his stubbornness could be seen as being based more on emotions than facts, he starts off with his little notebook with facts of the case and tries to insist that he has no personal feelings on the matter.

Judicial selection is an intriguing topic as there are multiple ways that judges take their seat on the bench. The United States Constitution spells out how federal judges are selected and leaves it up to the individual states to establish their means for selecting judges. In federal courts, judges are appointed and it varies between appointment and election for state courts. The purpose of this paper is to examine the differences between appointments and elections (as well as the multiple types of elections) and to give an opinion as to which is the better alternative. Federal judges are appointed by the President of the United States and are confirmed on the advice and consent of the United States Senate.

A group of juror comprising of 12 men from diverse backgrounds began their early deliberations with 11 of ‘guilty’ and 1 of ‘not guilty’ verdicts. Juror 8 portrayed himself as a charismatic and high self-confident architect. Initially, Juror 1 who played the foreman positioned himself as self-appointed leader of the team in which has led his authority to be challenged as his leadership style lacked in drive and weak. In the contrary, Juror 8 is seen as the emergent leader considering his openness to probing conversations while remaining calm. Implying this openness to the present, it has become crucial that a good decision relies on knowledge, experience, thorough analysis and most importantly critical thinking.

In this paragraph, the advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury will be discussed. The main advantages are that juries introduce community values into the legal process and can influence the system (Joyce, 2013); they can achieve a sense of equity and fairness without enforcing unjust laws; in addition, juries are independent and neutral (Davies, 2015). Moreover, they guarantee participation from the public in a democratic institution (Hostettler, 2004), and represent the population thanks to the randomness with which jurors are decided (Davies, 2015). On the other hand, the most important disadvantages are that jurors have no prior contact with the courts, no training (Hostettler, 2004) and therefore they lack knowledge of law, courtroom proceedings (Joyce, 2013), and lack of ability to understand the legal directions (Thomas, 2010). Moreover, they must face evidence which is highly technical (Hostettler, 2004).