America gives any defendant a trial by judge, unless the judge allows a trial by jury. There are certain cases that need a better balance between a guilty verdict and the defendant’s freedom. Murder trials often receive 12 jurors to decide the defendant’s fate, while civil cases often have a judge making the verdict. The issue lies in citizens because they are unaware of the seriousness that presides in choosing another human’s future. Judges should be the only decision makers to choose a verdict which gives a defendant a fair trial in how they will use fact over feeling, they will be focused on deciding the verdict, and they are aware of the moral issues that may come out in a case.
A judge should be the only one able to decide a person’s fate because they use fact over feelings. For
…show more content…
For Instance, the cartoon in document E illistates a man saying, “we, the jury, find the defendant to be as guilty as he looks.” (Document E). This indicates that lawfully uneducated people don’t understand how to choose a verdict based upon the facts. They will use their biased opinion for evidence. Another piece of evidence lies in cartoon 1, where most of the jurors are unfocused from the trial, while others simply do not care (Document E). With a jury that cares about everything but the trial, how is the defendant suppose to be given a fair trial? He isn’t. The last piece of evidence is cartoon 3, where a dog is being judged by his natural enemies, feline (Document E). These ‘jurors’ all hate the dog and no matter what the evidence is, the dog will be guilty. It applies to our system with the notion that a suspect is hated by jurors because the media accuses them of being guilty before the trial begins. A jury is not trained to decide someone’s fate, which is why a judge, as a trained lawyer, should choose the
Brock Allen Turner was a Stanford University student. However, after a frat party his life and a women’s life changed. Tuner was caught raping a woman who was unconscious behind a dumpster. With two witnesses present in court, Tuner was only sentenced to six months in jail.
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.
The argument/famous Supreme Court case Madison vs. Marbury asked us the question should the Judicial Branch be able to declare laws unconstitutional. I think the Judicial Branch should be able to declare a law unconstitutional. I believe this because the judicial branch is very small, they have no other checks on any other branch, and they don’t receive any money. The Judicial Branch is so small.
The jury system has cases where jurors are influenced by the media because it is almost impossible to find someone who has not heard about the case and formed a personal opinion already (Doc F). In widely known cases, jurors may have been influenced by outsiders and the media indirectly and directly. For example, in the People vs. O.J. Simpson case, the infamous decision might have been made because of the jurors discussing the case with people who they are not suppose to discuss it with. An argument can be made that jurors are specifically instructed not to discuss the case or read anything about it, but there is no way to verify that the jurors are actually following this rule. Jurors can also have personal bias because they are very different from the defendant or prosecution (Doc E).
The murder of James Bulger prompted a media frenzy, not only on a national scale but also internationally, the pre-trial coverage was extremely extensive there was arguments that the juries opinions would be biased due to the opinions outputted via the media and public. Although the judge had agreed the coverage of the trial was beyond ordinary, it was agreed that it was acceptable for the hearing to undergo with the jury (Guardian, 2001). The UK media coverage of the crime had deeply affected the trial due to public opinion. The media vilified Venables and Thompson excessively, only the day after the judgement, the tabloid, the Daily Star headlined quoting ‘How do you feel now you little bastards?’
People tend to believe that trial by jury is the best way to keep the trial completely fair to both parties involved. In some cases, though, it is the opposite of that. One of these cases is in To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee. In the trial, Tom Robinson, a black man, was accused of raping Mayella Ewell, the daughter of a white family. Tom’s attorney, Atticus, was able to prove that Tom was innocent, but the verdict was that Tom was guilty.
Court System Controversy Although there is a standard for courtrooms and how they should function it is, nevertheless, unrealistic and unable to be upheld due to bias, prejudice- either conscious or subconscious, and stereotyping. Initially, bias is using personal experiences to hold strong emotions toward a variety of groups of people. Bias can affect the court system in countless ways.
In Cold Blood: What It Says About The Death Penalty The death penalty has always been a controversial topic. After the time spent on In Cold Blood, there is no wonder why talk show hosts and news programs wanted to speak to Capote to hear his opinion. After reading the book myself, I have come to the conclusion that Capote did indeed formulate an opinion on the death sentence, though one could tell that he made an attempt to stay unbiased. Throughout the book Capote leaves bits and pieces an opinion within the text.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Plea Bargaining Plea bargaining is an agreement used in criminal cases to avoid a lengthy trial. Here, the prosecutor and the defendant work together to agree with each other, instead of taking the litigation to a jury. It often includes things like pleaing to a lesser charge and pleaing guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence. It is highly common in the US, where many cases are settled through plea bargains than by trials.
There are many other fallacies that infiltrate their way into the minds of jurors and people throughout society, but the greatest known effect is the “CSI effect”. Today, real crime stories and crime reenactments are among the top viewed programs on television. Hollywood and mainstream television has exaggerated the expectations of viewers when it comes to the readiness and availability of evidence at a crime scene. In an article written by Honorable Donald E. Shelton, on behalf of the National Institute of Justice, he stated “Many laypeople know—or think they know—more about science and technology from what they have learned through the media than from what they learned in school. It is those people who sit on juries.
What is important may be invisible to the eyes, and sometimes are relative to the beholder. Investigation shows that our visual perceptions are prone to corruption, bias, and might even be twisted from the truth. If a juror cannot come to a consensus to all agree to a verdict this may cause the jurors to Dilbert longer meaning when the juror are not unanimous they have to stay until a decision is made this could take away from their family and or work and also can cause or be very stressful at that point it up to each member jury to voice their opinion and convince the other 11 jurors to sway in what they believe in. when disusing there view on the verdict they are using the information given from the trail on how they Perceive the evidence sometimes the same evidence is perceived in different ways at that point each juror brings to the table there views and hope they all come to the same verdict. When a jury has a split decision sometimes the judge will keep them together until all 12 of them have the exact same verdict because they don’t want to have to call it a misfile and start all over again the judge rather have a
The United States is one of very few western nations that still has a death penalty. In life people are taught that violence is not the answer and that murder is a sin. The death penalty goes against everything that people are taught in life. The wrong way to approach a situation is to inflict what someone is accused of upon them. Also the risk of executing an innocent person cannot be completely eliminated.
America is one of the few places in the world where the citizens get the chance to make these decisions as a jury. In the play 12 Angry Men the people on the jury were everyday people and they were asked to choose whether the boy was guilty of murder. Had there been no jury a government would use the boy as an example of what would happen if you murder and send him to his death. “There were 11 votes for guilty it’s not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.” This was said by one of the jurors in 12 Angry Men this shows that having a jury gives someone wrongly accused a better chance of walking free if you have a jury of peers to talk about it and decide.
In such a scenario, the judge has an easy time of giving a sentence as stipulated in the law. However, if the defendant pleads innocent, the jury service is required. The jury listens to the evidence and facts presented and makes decisions based on those facts while the judge makes decisions from the legal a perspective. Over the past years, there has been a heated debate on the significance of juries in petty cases. A senior court of appeal judge argued that juries should be abolished in trials of petty crimes (Rudgard, 2017).
This essay will briefly discuss the role of the jury and how it works, from the principle behind it, to the method with which members are selected, and to the powers available to jurors. Moreover, it will outline advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury, and it will point out a couple of ways which could ameliorate this type of trial. Trial by jury has been a part of the criminal justice system since the 12th century (Davies, 2015), it is considered an ancient right and a symbol of liberty (Hostettler, 2004). It creates no precedent and it can decide challenging cases equitably without making bad law, it also brings members of the public into the administration of justice and into an understanding of legal and human rights (Hostettler,