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. The Auld Report by Lord Justice (2001) suggests some cases should be without a jury. This is as Lord Justice views complex cases such as, fraud as too serious and difficult for juries to come to understand leading …show more content…
The advantage of the public being involved is the result of a fair justice criminal system and an increase in public confidence. This is as the public can apply their non-legal advice and base their opinions on what they believe. They have the ability to provide empathy instead of applying the laws. The consequence of abolishing trials would result in the defendant not being provided a fair trial undermining The Human Rights Act 1998. References: Richard Stone, Textbook on Civil Liberties and Human Rights (Oxford University Press, 2014) 187 Antony Duff, The Trial on Trial: Truth and due process Volume 1 of The Trial on Trial, Antony Duff (Hart Publishing, 2004) 5 Legislationgovuk, 'Article 6 ' (Human Rights Act 1998, 09/11/1998) accessed 27 September 2016 Scottish courts and tribunals service, 'Https://wwwscotcourtsgovuk/docs/default-source/coming-to-court/jurors/guidetojuryserviceeligibilitypdf?sfvrsn=6 ' (Guide to jury service Eligibility and Applying fot excusal, 1974) accessed 27 September 2016 Christopher H. smith, Human Rights in Northern Ireland: Congressional Hearing (DIANE Publishing, 1999) 142 Jennifer Currer and Peter Smith, AQA Law AS: Student 's Book Paperback (Nelson Thornes; New edition 2008) Kronlid  AC 541 (CA) Alisdair gillespie and Siobhan weare, The English Legal System (Oxford University
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
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
One of the most important benefits, however, is the reduced risk of a compromise verdict. The overall benefit of majority verdicts suit the circumstances for all but the commonwealth laws. (Knox 2002) “When a lone ratbag juror can abort a trial, the time-honoured idea of the unanimous verdict starts to look decidedly unsound.” In the book ‘Secrets of the Jury Room’ Knox broadcasts the ideals of jurors acting selflessly and complains about rogue jurors messing up a trial.
There are .58% of criminal cases that get sent to trial by jury (Doc A). This evidence helps explain why jury trials should not still be an option because even though you might have a better chance with trial by jury but on a very small percentage of people actually are able to get tried by jury's. This pretty much means that you don't really have a trial by jury because of how many people won't get the chance for trial by
Foreman (Juror 1): He is an assistant football coach at a High School. Elected as the foreman of the jury, he has the responsibility to keep the jury process organized. Although he is not particularly bright, he is dogged. Initially, he struggled to keep up with his authority. Eventually, he managed to weight to his authority as the foreman as well as his opinions.
Citizen Required To Serve? Jury a group of citizens sworn to give a verdict in a legal case on the basis of evidence submitted to them in court. Being able to serve on a jury is an absolute privilege to do for some and one thing that makes this country very different and unique from others. Serving on a jury should not be required for citizens. Some people believe serving on a jury should be a requirement for every citizen.
On the 14th of October 2011, Mr Rayney had submitted an application for a trial which only involved a judge without a jury present. This was due Mr. Rayney assuming that a strong bias had been manifested pre-trial as a result of the subjective publicity revolving around the death of his wife, Corryn(The Conversation, 2012). Therefore, the jury and any member of the public would already have preconceived views in favour of Mr Rayney being guilty of murdering his wife. The trial was successful for Mr Rayney where he was acquitted of murdering his wife. Similarly, this issue is somewhat common as it had also occurred in the case Evans v The State of Western Australia  WASCA 182, in which both appellants had made appeals after being convicted for murder.
Although she ended up spending months in jail, the arguments against her conviction on the legal terms of a change in jury member were not only heard out, but accepted, resulting in her freedom. (122). Although she faced unideal consequences under the law, as the jail time and fear of execution were certainly detrimental, they were far less severe than those that would have been expected. Compared to other women accused in other areas, Disborough’s legal consequences were notably light. She did, however, face more harsh consequences from her peers and fellow citizens.
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.
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
I think that I would like to be on a jury and experience what is required of a juror, I think everyone should be a member of the jury at least once in their lifetime. Having to experience the juries’ duties on a civil or criminal case, in some instance would be hard. Especially in a murder case involving children or battered women. When the judge gives you direction to please disregard that statement. How can you disregard information that you have heard?
10th Juror represents those who are prejudiced against people from differing cultural and socio-economic backgrounds. This prejudice reaches its peak during his fear against these people. To him, this trial is a chance to get rid of one of them by finding the accused ‘guilty’, even at the expense of a fair trail. Like the other defendant, the 5th Juror and other Juror are recognized for they childhood
Guilty or not guilty, all citizens deserve a thorough trial to defend their rights. Formulating coherent stories from events and circumstances almost cost a young boy his life. In Twelve Angry Men, 1957, a single juror did his duty to save the life of an 18 year old boy by allowing his mind to rationalize the cohesive information presented by the court and its witnesses. The juror’s name was Mr. Davis, he was initially the only one of 12 jurors to vote not guilty in reason that the young boy, sentenced with first degree murder, may be innocent. I am arguing that system 1 negatively affects the jurors opinion on the case and makes it difficult for Mr. Davis to convince the other jurors of reasonable doubt.
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.
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,