Advantages And Disadvantages Of The Jury System

With 12 people of different experiences it was extremely hard to get everyone to agree on a verdict due to their opinions. In reality this would be a bit easier as the jurors would take longer to deliver rather than 5 minutes before the end of the lesson. Throughout the trial the defence kept mentioning another case and some luggage I took notes on what they said it but it was very difficult to understand as it was never properly explained. In a real trial as there would be longer to deliver hopefully one person would have the information but this could be aided by having transcripts of the case which is not given in a real

This causes many issues within the system due to the lack of evaluation during cases’, and hardly any representations of illnesses. These cases can be altered due to the public opinions during publicized cases which can pursue the judges and create a new outcome of a case. While the insanity plea proves that some criminals are mentally unstable, it should be used with caution because many convicted criminals abuse it during court cases’, imitate being mentally ill during an examination, and are able to avoid the death

Judges do not like to inform jurors of their power to nullify (Linder, 2015), because they believe that the number of hung juries will increase. Jurors are, only, told what they need to know to decide innocence or guilt. Is it right to withhold their right to

Congressional gridlock is not an uncommon thing in congress. Congressional gridlock happens when there is difficulty passing a law that is trying to satisfy the needs of the people. Gridlock often makes us feel stuck. Neither political party can reach an agreement to enforce a law on an issue, therefore they continue to meet and discuss until a conclusion is made. Gridlock is also referred to as “deadlock” or “political stalemate” because it is almost as if there is nothing either party can do.

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

A careful look at the facts known about King’s assassination would lead one to know that Martin Luther King’s assassination was not a conspiracy, it was the work of the criminal James Earl Ray. Although in the end, some may believe that James Earl Ray is innocent or that one of the conspiracies are true, this overlooks the hard facts brought up in the investigations. The lack of definitive proof or witnesses and the changing statements of the people involved leads to an unsure conclusion. The various conspiracies may hold some relevance, however, each conspiracy shows weak points that removes it from the list of plausible theories.

Alexander explains how discretion is granted at almost every stage of the legal system, especially regarding the discretion that prosecutors have, jury selection and policing. Also, many of those arrested either get no legal representation or are given public defenders who are too overworked to truly dedicate their time, and rarely go to trial due to the pressures of guilty plea bargains. To add to the misfortune, arrestees are not told how a guilty plea will negatively damage the rest of their life, due to debt, denial of public assistance, loss of voting rights, and the social label of being a felon. Innocent family members are punished sometimes too, for if they are caught housing a criminal they can face losing their home, food stamps, and welfare. Alexander makes it clear that convicted criminals aren’t the only ones being affected by the vicious consequences of the legal system, but that their families are

Every court case has a ruling, but not all who know of each ruling, agrees with each ruling. For some cases, there are dissenting opinions in the case from a justice. I disagree with the Court’s decision on U.S. v. Bailey, 44 U.S. 394 (1980). This is because of how they handled the case, since there was more to it than just escaping confinement, according to the defendants. Also, the court does not clearly tell the jury what exactly they are determining about the case.

First, the 7th Amendment ensures that citizens have to right to have a court. It also helps us because the common law or civil law court hear their case on the Federal level by a jury. It also helps us by providing a jury trial. For example, in court jury, the case protects and no one can change the factor otherwise it will be re-examined by another court of United States. As well as, a person can’t be a double jeopardy which means if someone commits a crime and the police didn’t find any evidence against them so they can free to go.

It was very corruptible for a time, due to the fact that none of the laws were written and most citizens (mostly the lower classes) didn’t even know their own laws properly (up until the 12 tables were inscribed) so there was a lot of misinterpretation and bias, and there would have been some roman citizens committing small crimes unknowingly. Sentences could have been swayed to be in ones favour, or be biased towards the accused because their legal system wasn’t clear enough and was therefore taken advantage of.

There are a significant number of people tried for crimes that they did not commit based off of another’s repressed memory. Elizabeth Loftus made it her goal to find justice for those wrongfully accused. It is hard to say whether or not those accused are truly innocent or not, but what we can say is that too many people are being locked away without all the right evidence; just another’s memory of what might have happened. Loftus found it unlikely that any one person could forget such a traumatic experience, than remember is years later. Plenty of cases have these memory based convictions has their primary source of evidence, however, a repressed memory should not be a legit piece of evidence when attempting to convict another.

By fair Jury, the trial must take place in the county the crime took place. The accused have to know what they 're being charged with, why they 're in jail, who said they did it, and ask them questions. Put cues can force anyone to come to their trial and the cutest also has the right to a lawyer and if they can 't afford one they will

The process of analyzing, retaining, and storing data that can be crucial during a civil or criminal case against an employee or a business; is referred to as eDiscovery

In my opinion, I believe the jury selection process was conducted fairly and the final jurors selected to serve during the trial were selected properly, however I can also understand the defense’s concerns. Unfortunately, many people are unable to set their personal biases aside when it comes to race. People allow the skin color or religious beliefs of the accused, or the heinousness of the crime to cloud their judgement of the truth rather than let the evidence and witness testimony tell what really

She mentioned that there was a lot of talk going around in the city of Okeechobee, and that there were comments made by prosecutors prior to the jury selection that adversely impacted results. “Everyone knows everyone in this small town, it is not absurd to think that word of mouth spread rapidly.” The justices did not seem entirely satisfied with this statement, but they continued arguing in legal jargon that I could not for the life of me understand. The trial was quickly wrapped up after this, with no real solution as to how to move forward. The entire ordeal lasted around 35 minutes, and the next hearing was set about a month from this one.