Although the rationale of peremptory challenges, ironically, would be for the defendant and the prosecution to get rid of any potentially biased jurors, lawyers may instead use their peremptory challenges to form a jury that would pass a more favourable verdict. As lawyers are also not required to explain their decisions in striking out jurors in most cases, the makeup of the jury can thus be heavily imbalanced. However, as a judge would be required to not let any preconceived bias affect the administering of justice, the accused would hence receive a fairer treatment as compared to juries that might have any bias towards either the prosecution or the defendant. With juries also not being required to explain their decisions, any bias that the jury might have would not be easily found and challenged. Especially in cases where the death penalty is concerned, it is all the more important that juries mete out a fair verdict.
This paper will demonstrate how the jury system fails and lacks the capacity to judge and indict the accused because of the jurors’ bias and flaws in problem solving. Jury nullification should not be seen as a big part of the court system and their powers to indict an accused should be limited. Granting the jury members the ultimate power to make a decision of guilty or innocent based on
This is often because judges disallow the mention of jury nullification in their courtrooms. This is because some judges and other actioners of the law find the concept to be “a gut-punch to Democracy” and an “invitation to anarchy”. The concept is thought to be a violation of the justice system, and, as a result, some judges choose to execute their right to not inform the jury of their right to nullification. Often, jurors find out about jury nullification through their own research or prior knowledge of the practice. The concept of jury nullification is also gaining a lot of traction in modern media.
The Seventh Amendment guarantees that a persons accused of a crime can have a trial by jury .Getting rid of the jury system completely disown the Seventh Amendment also the Seventh Amendment protects us and or the persons getting accused of a crime from too much government power and control. So one reason that the government should keep the American jury system is because the Seventh Amendment guarantees trial by jury and keeps the government from gaining too much control. According to John Gastil and Phil Weiser “ the farmers of the united states constitution viewed jury service as a critically important feature of self-governance and enshrined (guaranteed) the right to serve on juries in the seventh amendment (Jury Service). This is just one of many reasons the jury system should still be a role in our nation 's criminal offence
Finch mainly talks about if the roles were switched as a ‘black man in a white man 's world’ white men are mainly chosen because of their complexion and believed white men hold more power. Even though Tom Robinson was innocent he still was wrongly accused, then apon going to prison Tom Robinson was later shot 17 times. One would think if he was breaking rules 1 bullet would take care of things, but 17 shots is clearly a act on hate and racism. Another quote that helps determine how Lee used Robinson to expose the truth about the justice system is, "Tom Robinson 's a colored man, Jem. No jury in this part of the world 's going to say 'We think you 're guilty, but not very ' on a charge like that.
If the officers had used the correct process and made Miranda aware of his right to remain silent, his confession could have been used in trial. Since his confession could not be used, Miranda was not convicted. These, although very different, cases both support that due process holds the upmost importance in
In Douglas’s argument he points out a large oversight of the rest of the court concerning probable cause. The officer in question did not have probable cause to assume that the men he stopped and frisked were carrying weapons. Rather, this is a speculation that resulted from another speculation of the officer. The suspicion is too far removed to be considered probable cause. Additionally, Douglas recognizes that the checks and balances of our system is being diminished by the ruling of the case because it undermines the authority of the judicial
I don 't think it should be abolished simply because innocent people have been executed. There are many more innocent people that would be killed due to there being no capital punishment. As well as this capital punishment works as a deterrent and makes people think twice about comitting as they are aware of the consequences. A crucial reason why I think capital punishment shouldn 't be abolished is the fact that it leaves the majority of society happy. Some critics of my viewpoint might point out that capital punishment goes against our human rights.
Anyone that is an orphan more than likely won’t commit murder. It’s simply not logical. That’s what the attorney is basically telling the jury. This is a way to sway the audience’s opinion to a situation by using their emotions against them, too forget about the real problem at
It is unconstitutional, and there are even precedents set, to set certain boundaries within racial profiling. Under our law,“...every person is innocent until proven guilty. When officials use profiling, they are indirectly blaming entire communities because a few among them have committed horrible crimes. Not only is that wrong, but it 's also a waste of law-enforcement resources.”(Kaenel). It is said that every person is innocent until proven guilty, and not the other way around.
Participants should not just be college students and determine if the jurors themselves could be considered discredited. Jurors’ maybe racist, sexiest, ageist may judge the eyewitness or the accused with no regard towards the evidence. Another limitation was the lack of knowledge of the jurors. They could have no knowledge in regards to the subject of criminal law and forensics to determine the outcome of a trial. As well a lay person may believe a false eyewitness, believing they would not change what exactly they saw.
This will apply to defense attorneys as well, they may be unsure of their ability to get an acquittal for their client; however, in some cases the accused many know in his heart that he is innocent and want to go to trial. This is very rare because roughly 97% of federal
The Pros and Cons of Plea Bargaining Disclaimer By: LawInfo When faced with criminal charges, a defendant often has one simple goal. That is, to minimize the potential penalty. Of course, being found innocent at trial, and being aquitted, is the best way to avoid jail time and other penalties. However, going to trial can be risky because it is impossible to predict what a jury will decide. Therefore, many defendants choose to enter a plea bargain agreement with the prosecution.
It can lead the jury to believe that this verdict is a compromise between the not guilty by reason of insanity and guilty, when in reality it is the same as guilty. Many states are getting rid of the not guilty by reason of insanity and replaced it with the guilty but mentally ill
Death Qualification: Choosing Jury in Death Penalty Cases Death qualification is a process unique to capital trials in which prospective jurors are questioned about their beliefs regarding the death penalty. Courts can eliminate potential jurors who are not willing to vote for the death penalty in a capital case. If the judge believes that a juror 's feelings about the death penalty would impair his or her ability to judge the case and choose the punishment fairly, that juror will be dismissed "for cause." There is an unlimited number of "for cause" challenges and typically all jurors who say that they oppose the death penalty are excluded. Jurors who are not eliminated by the judge "for cause" because of their death penalty views can be eliminated