The criminal justice system faces multiple accusations for not standing up to the “innocent until proven guilty” standards. While the legal system has fought to keep this statement true, the challenges still exist. One of these is a proper trial that is both unbiased and without error. The setting for a proper trial includes an impartial jury selection to follow the proper procedures of the courtroom. Selection of the jury is an important task and serving on a jury is considered by the United States as the civic duty of the community.
This may cause the jury to be indecisive between what the actual case and what the media portrays it to be. The amount of media released for cases creates a negative impact within the courts and makes it difficult for a fair trial. When juries are uncertain about a case or a suspect, they result to social media platforms and news coverage that will provide them with more information and depth into the case. ‘’But if the case unfolds in the media, by the time a case gets to court, the supposedly impartial jury (or even the judge) may have already heard information and allegations (not admissible by court standards) that have caused them to seriously prejudice the parties’’. (Nedim, 2014).
The judge presided over the trial and served as a legal expert… The jury heard the events and accused guilty or not-guilty (Is The American Jury System Still A Good Idea?). ” Jury trials should remain an option because because we as Americans have the right of the seventh , jurors are only told 100 percent of proven information, and the jurors are not influenced by media, people, or unproven information to make a decision and the
Imagine how a court would be run if it was dysfunctional. With many pieces of evidence to solve one problem that can lead to months after months, just to say those words, “guilty or not guilty.” There was one case that caught everybody's attention and became very famous. In 1994, O.J Simpson was accused for brutally murdering his ex-wife Nicole Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman. He was sentence to court, and it took about 10 months to come to a conclusion as he walked out of court as a freedman. As it was a nation worldwide news that was all over tv. People around the country watching was shock of the decision, an debut that caught everybody eyes, that O.J Simpson should’ve been guilty. Because of how the court system work, it let a dangerous man walk out free.
Over the past few decades, hundreds of people have been falsely imprisoned. Many of their cases were founded on the account of one or more eyewitnesses. The criminal justice system often relies on eyewitness accounts to piece together a crime and identify the perpetrator. But studies showing the faultiness of our memories, particularly in stressful events, suggest that witnesses may not be as reliable of a source as we think. An often-cited example of when the memory of an eyewitness has failed to serve justice is the case of Ronald Cotton.
OJ Simpson was a very achieved person player until he made one big mistake. The trial of OJ Simpson was a long stressful process to prove a star innocent or guilty of murder. This took Place in the state of California on October 3, 1995. OJ was tried for a murder crime of his ex-wife and another man. In the end OJ turned out to be not guilty of this crime. Justice was not served because in the trial OJ Simpson did not get a punishment for his said to be crime.
Legal history A system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties, this is the definition of law. Although the definition of law is evident and perceptible,the portrayal and act of law varies. Throughout the justice system there are many inconsistencies such as the type of law, there is common,criminal,civil, and administrative. Throughout these systems of law there are also criminal proceedings. In these criminal proceedings, some will find that the verdict is just.
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).
All the jurors except Juror 3 had been convinced he was no longer guilty, even though the evidence displays it as such. After much debate juror number three says,”All right. ‘Not guilty’ ”(72). All the testimonies and evidence given by the court had been proven wrong by the jury. This shows major flaws in the justice system and it shows how reasonable doubt is found.
Wrongful convictions are one of the most worrisome and tragic downsides to the Canadian Criminal Justice System. As stated by Campbell & Denov (2016). “cases of wrongful convictions in Canada call into question the ability of our criminal justice system to distinguish between the guilty and innocence” (p. 226). In addition, wrongful convictions can have devastating repercussions on the person, who was found guilty, effecting their personal/public identities, beliefs and family lives. This essay will be examine some of the common factors that apply to the conviction of an innocence person. Also, whether the CJS is doing enough to inhibit wrongful convictions and finally, the problems that parole can cause for a person maintaining their innocence.
The play “Twelve Angry Men” shows that relying on twelve people for a life sentencing situation could be bad for the justice system. The justice system could be bad in at least three ways by people being biased, fighting for the wrong side, and people having no common sense. Usually others opinions cause the justice system to be worse than it has to be. A danger of relying on twelve individuals in a court system means that there are some that would be biased about the case. Juror 5 was biased for relating this case to himself because he was from the slums and so was the boy on trial.
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.
Kalissa Rogers The Trial of all Trials:The O.J. Simpson Murder Case The case of the century, the one that everyone made sure to keep up on through the many months it was on; “People of the State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson.” This case is one that nobody will forget. There were many months of blood, sweat, and tears put in by both sides for the final verdict, O.J. Simpson had been found not guilty. It all started on June 12, 1994 at around ten P.M. when Nicole Brown- Simpson and Ronald Goldman were murdered(Linder).
In order for the people whose job it is to determine innocence or guilt of a person need more than just expert testimony in the form of a long drawn out explanation. Videos, photographs, or audio recordings are all helpful tools when presenting a case to a jury. In this case with Andrea Yates, there was so much evidence presented that could either have a positive or negative effect on the outcome of the trial. Prosecuting attorneys gave the jurors quite a horrific scene to digest mentally.
In this paragraph, the advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury will be discussed. The main advantages are that juries introduce community values into the legal process and can influence the system (Joyce, 2013); they can achieve a sense of equity and fairness without enforcing unjust laws; in addition, juries are independent and neutral (Davies, 2015). Moreover, they guarantee participation from the public in a democratic institution (Hostettler, 2004), and represent the population thanks to the randomness with which jurors are decided (Davies, 2015). On the other hand, the most important disadvantages are that jurors have no prior contact with the courts, no training (Hostettler, 2004) and therefore they lack knowledge of law, courtroom proceedings (Joyce, 2013), and lack of ability to understand the legal directions (Thomas, 2010). Moreover, they must face evidence which is highly technical (Hostettler, 2004).