Pros And Cons Of Jury Duty

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.

However, the Court also noted that larger juries might be necessary in certain cases to ensure a fair trial. Despite the Court's rulings, some critics argue that a six-person jury is not large enough to provide an adequate representation of the community and that it may be more susceptible to biases and errors. However, others argue that smaller juries can be more efficient and can still provide a fair trial with proper safeguards and procedures in place. This is an important part of our lives because it helps ensure that people accused of crimes get a fair trial. Having a jury of a certain size can affect the outcome of a trial.

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.

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 jury, by definition,

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.

The jury system continued to evolve over a period of time and eventually the United States Constitution was written to govern the jury system. The Sixth and Seventh Amendments stated that we should have 12 members and the cases were to be resolved upon a unanimous verdict (Landsman & Holderman2010). In the 1970’s the court approved juries of 12 or fewer and a non-unanimous verdict in civil cases in federal court cases. Since the evolution of the judicial system it has become easier to get jurors to come to court to do their civil duty. A list is compiled of selected jurors from voter registration and driver’s license information from the state (United States Courts, n.d.).

A flawed jury is what makes for an unfair trial. Juries are a crucial piece of the puzzle which helps create the system we have today, one where it needs to be represented in the right way that makes the justice system an improved one. The judicial system is one where the jury needs to accurately represent the community that the accused resides in, achieving this can impact the community first hand, make it easier to protect the defendant from unfair sentencing, and promote public confidence in the justice system which is what lots of people distrust and lack in. The citizens in a community are the ones that get impacted from the actions of accused in the first hand which is why they need to be accurately shown in the jury.

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.

Trial jury is smaller in size compared to the grand jury, trial jury usually consists of 6-12 people. Trial jury, which is usually the type of jury we see televised, is usually open to the public, very strict, and controlled by a judge. Defendants usually are allowed to be present, as well as testify, and call witnesses if they choose to do so. A trial usually has no say so regarding the trial they are working on, usually the only thing they are allowed to do, is deliberate and come up with a final decision, also known as the verdict. The trial jury rules either in favor of the plaintiff or defendant.

A jury is made of twelve United States citizens, sometimes six, that help in criminal cases to see if the defendant is guilty or not guilty. They must evaluate all evidence and take motives into consideration when deciding if a defendant should be found guilty or not guilty. These twelve citizens tend to have no legal training and must be unbiased throughout the whole criminal trial for it to be fair. Candidates must pass a background check for the case to remain impaired. As humans tend to have internal biases whether they realize it or not many question if criminal cases should have a jury.

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