Jury System Dbq Essay

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 fragility of it is that you can be put on a jury full of people who don’t care about your fate, and through unlucky means be accused of something that you didn’t do. People decide your faith, and you can’t expect those on the jury to react in a completely unbiased way. Juror seven likewise, does not care about the fate of the boy, dismissing the case in a blink of an eye, with his only desire was to attend the baseball game. Clearly unfit for jury duty, he was willing to sacrifice the life of a potentially innocent boy. It can’t be known whether a jury will consist of biased or unbiased people, those convicted have no control of such matters.

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.

1.0 Introduction Section 80 guarantees the right to trial by jury. The Queensland Jury Act 1995 provides the current legislation which decrees that all trials on indictment must be by jury. In the ninety years since this legislation was passed, an increase of trial complexity has occurred, leaving many jurors with the inability to comprehend the information and evidence procured in a trial. This proceeds to make lay juries ineffective and unreliable. To remedy the situation, specialised juries should be introduced to minimize the amount of incorrect verdicts, misunderstandings in court, jury misconduct, and avoidance of jury duty.

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.

Is the American Jury System still a Good Idea? In the American Judicial System today, there is a choice between trial by jury or bench trial. Trial by jury is used today by selecting jurors from pools of people who are eligible, adult American citizens. Trial by jury is often controversial because of how the jurors are not professionals whereas in a bench trial, a judge is highly educated in law (Doc B).

Juries according to dictionary.com consist of a group of people normally 12 individuals who are provided with facts about a court case in order to give a verdict. As a democracy, the United States has juries in certain cases in order to maintain law and order and for the right of freedom to be continually exercised by every American Citizen. Jury members are selected from a list based on their voter’s registration and or driver’s license to go through certain procedure to determine qualifications for jury duty. The procedure is called voir dire and persons who showcase bias, possible relation to the case, or are not fit to make decisions concerning the case are removed. Jurors are then given information on the case and get to listen to both sides of the case in order to make a conclusion.

Jury Duty Jury duty is a very important obligation that every citizen of the United States has bestowed upon them. It is not only a responsibility, but a privilege to be able to serve on a jury. Jury duty is the most direct way to participate in the democracy and the legal system in the United States. Also, as was stated in the video that we watched in class, and then echoed by the person that I interviewed, it is important for the jury to consist of many different people with different backgrounds, and it is important that everyone in the community gets involved with the jury process.

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.

It truthfully followed the Federal Judicial procedure of procuring a jury that could be used in a court of law. While the utilization of jury consultants had been dramatized, the film demonstrated the role of a jury consultant in such a way that glorifies its usage. There may be a time and place for the use of jury consultants; however, until the disadvantages of its utilizations are recognized and rectified, it will remain a perversion within the judicial

This was determined from way back when America was first being created. Originally the U.S was control by the British but one of the main reasons for our independences from them other than the fact that the U.S. did not like their high taxes but also was because the jurors and their rights. According to the video “Annenberg Classroom: Juries” when a judge did not like the juries verdicts they were fine and threatened to have their nose cut off. American wanted their judicial to be fair and equal for all. However, they are wrong in the fact that all citizens should need to serve on the jury because people will misuse this power and will not truly understand their effect on the case and more importantly the people live on trail.

No. 8: I think that the jury system we have today has its own advantages and disadvantages. For example, a jury that consists of jurors who are biased could be manipulated by ‘outsiders’ through bribery or some jurors, as we have discussed before, might have some personal prejudices/beliefs that may affect their decision making. But there are some advantages as well because the decision that is made by the jury is thought out very carefully by a group of people. Interviewer: [gathers all his papers]

This may cause a judge to render a decision based on obligation instead of holding true to their beliefs. This pressure is not easily felt as intensely by appointed judges, especially those with lengthy terms. In considering the equity of the pros and cons it is my opinion that the existing system in place works best. Every system is flawed.

This essay will briefly discuss the role of the jury and how it works, from the principle behind it, to the method with which members are selected, and to the powers available to jurors. Moreover, it will outline advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury, and it will point out a couple of ways which could ameliorate this type of trial. Trial by jury has been a part of the criminal justice system since the 12th century (Davies, 2015), it is considered an ancient right and a symbol of liberty (Hostettler, 2004). It creates no precedent and it can decide challenging cases equitably without making bad law, it also brings members of the public into the administration of justice and into an understanding of legal and human rights (Hostettler,

The legal professionals in Japan were always against the jury trial system as they did not want lay people to involve in administering justice. Because of this, jury trial could never be popular in Japan. Beside this fact, according to some commentators and researchers, there was another reason for unpopularity of the jury trial system in Japan. The reason was, the defendants, who choose jury trial, had to give up their right to appeal on factual determination made by the jury. Although the acquittal rate in jury trial was higher than the bench trial, jury was less admired by the