Has The Jury System Outlived Its Usefulness And Practicality?

Jurors should not know anything about a specific case and not follow public affairs and read the news (Doc F). When a person is selected to be part of a jury, they have to say an oath stating that they will not use their emotions to determine the verdict of a trial. If a juror is caught using their emotions, they will be fined for a crime called perjury. Since there are twelve people in a jury, there is a variation of opinions when the jury decides a verdict. But, a judge is more professional and knows how to only use the evidence provided and be less biased.

1.Intro The jury system for Australia is not a fair system. There are many fault with the structure of how it is decided and how is picked. The jury should be 100% fair and not biased in any way, if this is not the case a criminal or civil offences could be charged for the wrong thing. Some reasons why the jury system is not a fair system is because Ordinary people may not understand complex legal technicalities, some people are exempt from serving, the jury is not a true cross-section of society and also It is difficult for people to remain completely impartial, especially if they are influenced by the media coverage of the trial.

Critics try to counter by saying that jury nullification is a bad method because juries are not experienced and trained as police and prosecutor are. The thing is though juries are useful exactly because they are not trained to know the law. They are a common sense point of view because they are not affected by restricting law. Such a common sense point of view is necessary to properly balance the rule of law with the fair application of justice—because a purely legal approach made by lawyers and judges can often result in harsh results. That is why it is important to have another party whose views can be different from judges and lawyers to have the power to counter the wrongness made by them.

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

Over the years, a plethora of court cases have caused Americans to wonder: is our jury system indeed as wondrous as it is conceived to be? To explain, the jury system is the concept of giving the defendant in a trial the option of either having a bench trial, one where a judge alone reaches a verdict, or a trial by jury, one where a group of twelve ordinary citizens is chosen to reach a verdict on the case. One may wonder why a dozen everyday denizens are being endowed with the absolute power over a possibly life or death decision in the life of a neighbor that is unknown to them, but the framers of the United States Constitution believed that this was the most democratic option in making sure that justice is properly served. Explaining further,

A majority of citizens see jury duty as some sort of punishment, which is made clear by popular television shows and other forms of media, which greatly diminishes the value of the jury system. In cases where the media plays a major role, such as the Casey Anthony case, jurors can be endangered after a verdict is made (Document D, 295). A woman was told that Anthony was found not guilty, and she said that Anthony would not be accepted back into the community and would have to move away. Jurors of the case who came to the verdict would also be in danger of being ostracized by the community for their unfavorable decision; if these citizens had known about the outcry that would follow the verdict, they most likely wouldn’t have served on the jury at all. A total of 5,082 trials were jury trials in one year, which was a small fraction of all cases tried in the same year (Document A, 289).

When finding a jury system, the court attempts to find twelve adults that are unbiased to decide the fate of the defendant. If we lived in a perfect world, that would work but we do not. Almost everybody has an opinion on certain topics that revolve around a case including the death penalty and their own experiences. A jurors will always be biased no matter what they put down when filling out their form. For example, in the 2008 court case, the verdict of the jury stunned the public making many raged and confused (Document D).

The American Jury System offers the United States citizens an opportunity to be proven guilty or innocent when a crime has been committed. The twelve person jury system was established in England hundreds of years ago. Originally this system was made up of twelve men and this was huge because they had the power to go against what the judge wanted in court. There are many vital points as to why our American jury system is successful; jury trials by the numbers, ownership by jury members towards the accused, how reliable or unreliable evidence is viewed by jurors, gender balance and the detailed screening process in which jurors are selected.

Juries are selected at random from the community, ensuring that the trial is not biased towards any particular group or individual. The use of juries in the legal system provides a system of checks and balances. “Of course trial by Jury is one of our sacred cows.” (Document B) The jury acts as a counterbalance to the power of judges and prosecutors, ensuring that no one person or group has too much influence over the outcome of the case.

Justice within the context of today’s round can be seen as exclusively retributive as we are discussing a just response towards a transgression of American law. The central question of the resolution is whether a just society ought to implement jury nullification as a legitimate check towards the exercise of governmental power thus

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AMERICA'S JURY SYSTEM Eighteen out of one-hundred people are summoned for jury duty each year. Each jury member a normal person whose decisions are influenced by the world’s culture and affected by their busy schedules. Therefore, Americas jury systems are no longer effective in the twenty-first century, as a result of outside opinions, beliefs, and events taking place in our world. First, jury members in today's society don't have time to recall for jury duty. In fact, jury duty is often dreaded or avoided among Americans.

The courts have failed to gain recognition and rejection of the practice of excluding blacks from the jury: First by the composition of the jury panels and second in the use of peremptory challenges to remove black people who reach the panels from which the jury pool is selected. The conclusion that race and racism, continue to be major influences in a jury selection process and in the outcome of juries seems beyond doubt, but Kennedy retains his commitment to anti-discrimination as the appropriate standard in jury selection as in all other aspects of the law enforcement process. Moreover, rejecting procedures that would ensure racial diversity in the jury pool is a complication because they are not focusing on what is more important which

Race should be an issue when selecting a jury due to discrimination still in fact being an issue in society. other demographic factors that should be taken into consideration when building a jury should be social status. I feel that its important due to human nature of judging something or someone when one is not aware or can understand others struggles for money, even if used for the wrong reasons. For instance, if a jury is giving a verdict in a legal case that involved a robbery where the victim was killed accidently.

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.

They have to decide important matters, verdicts, without giving reasons about their decision (Hostettler, 2004); they can nullify a verdict even if the evidence is overwhelming (Joyce, 2013). Furthermore, juries are too expensive, prolong the length of the trial (Davies, 2015) and the guilty can walk free, while the innocent is convicted (Joyce, 2013). In addition, jurors should be representative of society, but it is not