Both laws are somewhat similar in their legislative and executive branches. The American judiciary system is slightly different in a sense that all the courts are separate whereas Singapore’s judiciary system has sections. For instance, Singapore’s Supreme Court is made up of High Court and Court of Appeal whereas the American’s Supreme Court and Court of Appeal are two separate things. Another difference between the two law systems is that America has a jury system. The judge assigned to the case is responsible for the selection of jurors to serve as the jury in a particular case. The reason as to why the jury system was established to reach a fairer judgement of the case than using the judge’s conclusion alone. Because a jury
Then the case may be dismissed or the trial may start all over again (LC). The origins of the jury system are from the 11th-century England. The concept was that people were entitled to a jury of their peers. At the time, a peer meant someone who knew the accused, someone who lived in the neighborhood and knew who was a liar and who
Comparing the justice system of Canadian with the United States legal systems we find some similarities as well differences in the form of the legal system. However, viewing the Canadian criminal justice system it is somewhat separate in its combined judicial legal system where all the courts share the same system to include Canada’s Supreme Court which has the final decision authority throughout Canada. On the other hand, the United States has two parallel and independent judicial systems. The federal judicial system applies to federal law where the state judicial system is independent at the state level.
Court Systems: Comparing Canada, the United States, and Mexico This paper is a discussion of the court systems of Canada, the United States, and Mexico. The aim of the paper is to point highlight similarities and differences in each judicial system. It will allow the reader an insight to the how each country operates its judicial branch.
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 Texas and federal court systems are integral components of the American legal system, but they share both similarities and differences that distinguish them from one another. In this essay, I will discuss two similarities and two differences between these two court systems, examining their structures, method of selection, and types of cases heard. Firstly, the hierarchical structure is a fundamental similarity shared by both the Texas and federal court systems. Both systems employ a similar hierarchical structure that commences with trial courts and progresses through intermediate appellate courts to the highest court at the top.
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
With twelve people judging a case, it is more likely that someone will have the sense and maturity to decide to put aside their own beliefs and only go with the facts. Thus, having a jury gives a better safety guard for the defendant. Yes, the media will often over-publicize a case, causing a possible bias in the jurors, but in the end in cases such as the one in Document D, the jury was able to put aside the media and do what is
Like the Electoral College, several of the plans made by the Founding Fathers have lost some of their practicality. What worked in the past does not always work in the future, and this is the case for the jury system. The sole reason it was created was to ensure that each citizen was guaranteed a fair trial, which was a main concern due to Britain’s monarchy. In modern times, however, the judicial branch of the United States could easily give every citizen a fair trial with only a judge presiding over the case. It is clear that bench trials are superior to trials by jury because the citizens on juries are unqualified or biased, its benefits do not outweigh its burdens, and its claim to encourage civic duty is false.
The jury may not be experienced enough and can make fatal mistakes. Not only are the jurors biased, they are inexperienced. As shown in cartoon 1, 2, and 3 (Document E), many of the jurors have no experiences with court and base their verdicts on factors other than what the lawyers are giving them. Examples such as the jurors being dogs, verdict based on appearance, and being distracted with other issues during the court trial. The juror is inexperienced and biased, while the judge is experienced with what is going around during a trial, and they have been trained to be able to see both sides of a story and decide on evidence and
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.
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.
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.
To do this, they used various pieces of evidence and testimonies to convince the jury of their argument. The jury then decided whether or not Arias was guilty based on the claims of counsels, defense and prosecution. The judge was there to maintain order in the courtroom, negotiate between the counsels, and decide guilt, known as administrator, negotiator, and adjudicator respectively. Once Arias was convicted, the role then moves to correction. They are responsible for enforcing the punishment and incarceration that she was sentenced to.
The reason a jury trial is better suited than the bench trial because it provides fairness. This is shown in Document A in the Jury System Mini-Q where the chart had more convicted than those acquitted by about 87%. This
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