Every American citizen should serve on a jury because it allows new ideas into the verdict and it is fair to all Americans. In Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, Juror 11 says, “I have always thought a man was entitled to have unpopular opinion in this country. This is the reason why I came here. I wanted the right to disagree” (28). To allow all American citizens to serve on a jury, it would allow different views and ideas from other countries to be heard. If it was selective to only a certain group of people or the same twelve Jurors all the time the ending vote for guilty or not guilty would most likely be similar because they would bond through the other cases that they have done together. Which, is unfair for the rest of America if all …show more content…
In Twelve Angry Men, Juror 1(Foreman) says, “Anyway this friend of my uncle’s was on a jury once, about ten years ago- a case just like this one.....They let him off. Reasonable doubt. And do y’know, about eight years later they found out that he’d actually done it, anyway.” By allowing different people onto the jury, they have the ability to give assumptions and information about other cases which can sway and harm the verdict. Another example is, In Twelve Angry Men, Juror 3 says, “Shut up! [lunges at EIGHT, but is caught by two of the JURORS and is held. He struggles as EIGHT watches calmly. Then he screams.] Let me go! I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him!” By allowing every citizen to serve on the jury it can cause the jurors to get off topic and bring in personal matters not needed. If they were selective, verdicts would be made faster and wouldn't allow the jurors to be sidetracked. Those are the reasons why every American citizen should serve on the a jury. It allows new ideas into the verdict and it is fair to all Americans. Likewise, those are the reasons why it is bad to allow every citizen on the
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
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.
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
Our rejection of simple-majority jury decisions, I believe, was deeply-rooted. In the 1700’s, Sir William Blackstone made his opinion clear that a jury trial was the most “transcendent privilege” any person can hope for. 3 Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 379 (1768). That no state can take away your property or liberty without the “unanimous consent of twelve of his neighbors and equals,” was a great comfort to Blackstone, as it should be to all of us. Id. John Adams believed that a unanimous jury is the thing that “preserves the rights of mankind.”
This ability is an advantage as it allows for citizens to make decisions on cases whether civil or criminal based on facts as well as the law submitted by the judge to be applied. Other advantages include; the limited power government officials have over one another as well as the public. The presence of a jury allows for there to be varying views which positively affect cases and reduces the risk of a tyranny. Jury duty allows for the public to be part of decisions normally made by government officials which impacts their decisions. It allows for citizens to have a say in the judicial branch of government which is a characteristic of a democracy.
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.
“Other arguments against majority verdicts include that they compromise the criminal standard of proof of "beyond a reasonable doubt", given that at least one juror has a doubt; create a greater risk of convicting the innocent, leading to miscarriages of justice; and reduce public confidence in jury verdicts” (SMH 2005). However, a number of positives that occur after and during the trial largely outweigh the few issues that arise. There are far less hung juries. More than 80 cases resulted in hung juries during 2005. Majority verdicts as opposed to unanimous verdicts to better keep the integrity of the trial by helping prevent juror bribery or intimidation; it may also help stop rogue or stealth jurors (LY Lawyers 2017).
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.).
I think that I would like to be on a jury and experience what is required of a juror, I think everyone should be a member of the jury at least once in their lifetime. Having to experience the juries’ duties on a civil or criminal case, in some instance would be hard. Especially in a murder case involving children or battered women. When the judge gives you direction to please disregard that statement. How can you disregard information that you have heard?
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
However they are wrong because some people will not take it serious as it need to be. Citizens should not be required to serve on jury because bias jurors. For example, in the play “Twelve Angry Men” during the deliberation of the verdict some of the jurors showed bias toward the young man on trial because of where he was from. “We 're not here to go into the reasons why slums are
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.
Therefore, he tried to make the trial go faster by voting with the side with the most votes. My family in the real world also had to go through inconvenience of the jury duty. My cousin had her first prom and my Aunt got called for jury duty. She couldn’t help her daughter do her hair, makeup, and get pictures. My moms friend also had a conflict with the jury duty.
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
These people are dangerous and don’t need big reason to kill someone.(This is an example of Prejudice too) Perception Discussion of elevated train (0:18:05) Could hear the argument (0:19:24) Discussion of lady's testimony (1:21:21) In all three situations Jurors organizes the information and translates it into something meaningful and comes to conclusion which results into making others to switch their vote from guilty to not guilty.. Representativeness heuristic "