Arguments Against Majority Verdicts

The criminal justice system faces multiple accusations for not standing up to the “innocent until proven guilty” standards. While the legal system has fought to keep this statement true, the challenges still exist. One of these is a proper trial that is both unbiased and without error. The setting for a proper trial includes an impartial jury selection to follow the proper procedures of the courtroom. Selection of the jury is an important task and serving on a jury is considered by the United States as the civic duty of the community.

The jury system originated in England hundreds of years ago. The colonists brought the jury system from England to the United States. In 1733, John Zenger, a printer, printed a newspaper critical for the British Government. His attorney convinced the jury to be in favor for Zenger because his criticisms were true. After this trial, it gave ordinary citizens the freedom of speech and the power to go against the king. 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

This essay will look at the effects of a jury being abolished and a jury trial existing. There are certain requirements expected from jurors. These include: being aged 18 to 70 years of age, being registered on the electoral roll that they are randomly chosen on by a computer, and the individual has lived in the UK, Channel Islands or Isle of Man for 5 years after the age of 13. This allows the justice process to be fair and equal as all ethnicities have the opportunity of being randomly chosen allowing a bias free justice process.

Juror are randomly chosen citizens brought in to watch and interpret the case, and break it down and decide whether the defendant is guilty or not. Reginald Rose´s 12 Angry Men was written after while watching real murder trial it inspired him to reveal the positives and negatives of Jury deliberations. While bench trial have strong merits, trial by Jury is more effective for many reasons including,the diversity and variety of backgrounds the jurors bring, the increase chance of discovering the truth, as well as, the fact that Jurors are usually more caring then a Judge who may be calloused from previous experiences is why trial by Jury is the fairest way to decide a criminal case. A significant advantage trial by jury offer is the diversity and variety in backgrounds the Jurors. While the Jurors were discussing the stab wound Juror Five presents the relevant the point with his jurors saying, ¨ You don 't hold this of knife that way.

The judge presided over the trial and served as a legal expert… The jury heard the events and accused guilty or not-guilty (Is The American Jury System Still A Good Idea?). ” Jury trials should remain an option because because we as Americans have the right of the seventh , jurors are only told 100 percent of proven information, and the jurors are not influenced by media, people, or unproven information to make a decision and 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.”

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).

The play “Twelve Angry Men” shows that relying on twelve people for a life sentencing situation could be bad for the justice system. The justice system could be bad in at least three ways by people being biased, fighting for the wrong side, and people having no common sense. Usually others opinions cause the justice system to be worse than it has to be. A danger of relying on twelve individuals in a court system means that there are some that would be biased about the case. Juror 5 was biased for relating this case to himself because he was from the slums and so was the boy on trial.

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.

Like in “Twelve Angry Men” jurors did not talk their vote serious and only voted for the majority. “Oh. well… I think he’s guilty. I thought is was obvious. I mean nobody proved otherwise.” this shows juror two hesitate and only choosing with the

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]

While all of the other men have changed their vote to a not guilty verdict, the third jurors remains with his original belief. Even in the very end of the play, he acts hostile against the others trying to change his mind, in saying “Do you think I’m an idiot or something?” (Rose 72). One juror that seems almost impervious to argumentative fallacies and peer pressure is Juror 8. Juror almost displays the ideal juror, and the rest tend to mimic the flaws of the system.

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

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.

But in majority of the cases jurors are older. When the juror is younger they were more likely to find a defendant not guilty compared to the older juror. The evidence that would be compelling to me as a juror is when a small child is involved. There are so many cases now that shows how people are abusing the children and even killing them. While they are in a fit of rage.