The Pros And Cons Of The American Jury System

After this trial, it gave ordinary citizens the freedom of speech and the power to go against the king. 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 defense counsels can argue against the safeguard of accused before they are proved guilty with support of constitutional safeguards. The law enforcement officers cannot harass the accused or defame the accused because they are protected by the amendments in the constitution. The 4th Amendment states that unless there is warrant the house or accused cannot be searched. The law enforcement officers need to take permission before arrest or searching the accused. Due to this amendment in the constitution the adult criminal can get relief before they are proved guilty.

There is a concept of “jury of peers” which came by from Great Britain’s Magna Carta, wherein, which guarantees that nobles accused of a crime must be tried by the nobles and commoners by the commoners for a just and fair trial. The US jury works on the principle of a fair balance maintained in the jury for administering objective justice and not a biased decision which was clear in the Simpson’s case wherein due to the racial disparity in the jury the bent was naturally towards acquitting him rather than analysing the case on the basis of the facts of the case. There is also a misconception that a jury trial must always comprise of twelve people which is not true for in the US it varies from state to state as the fairness of a trial is not dependent on the number of jury members but on the basis of law for if the law is flawed the justice delivered will also be flawed for certain. 6.4 INCONSISTENCY OF JURY

Another contrasting trait of the Dikasteria is that when a person was put on trial, they were to defend themselves. In current American democracy if you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to you, attorneys did not exist in ancient

What would you do if you were the prosecutor of a felon who has killed a child as young as ten? Would you put him in prison for a couple years or give him the one thing he can’t escape from…. capital punishment? This punishment is when a criminal who was legally convicted is executed. Critics may disagree and say that it would go against the Constitution saying that there shall be no cruel or unusual punishment.

After most people hear what Perry has gone through you immediately give him a get out of jail free card right? You think that since he had a difficult upbringing he should be exempt from receiving the death penalty? Although you may think this, this is certainly not an excuse for such a violent act. Throughout In Cold Blood, Capote attempts to portray to the reader that Smith in a way should be exempt from the crime he commited and how one should not blame it on Smith himself, but his psychological background. Specifically when Al Dewey, the head of the Clutter murder investigation, states how the crime was not in fact Smiths fault.

The Constitution of the United States is the concrete platform that the nation is built upon which contains fundamental principles in which our nation is governed by. However, much of the Constitution is very ambiguous which leads to controversy in the court room. For example, the Eighth Amendment which states that “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” (Baltzell). The first part of the Eighth Amendment protects accused citizens of the United States from unreasonable and extreme amounts of bail that would prevent them from being released from pretrial containment and it also limits the amount of a fine that can be given to a convicted person (8th Amendment)(Kurt). The

I think amendment 8 should be changed from no cruel and unusual punishment to, a person shall be punished how the court see´s fit. Here is my case. If a murderer or a rapist is caught for their crime then they go to prison for a long time, you think that is bad. But really they are getting everything that a middle class American gets (they work, prisoners do not). If a murderer or a rapist is caught for their crime I think that they should have a punishment that fits the crime.

Personally, I do not think that a person shall be sentenced to death regardless of how bad the crime is. The government is not morally fit to make the decision to take someones’ life away, but they can put the person in prison if the judge is convinced the person did the crime. The decisions being made are not always going to be correct. What if the person being accused is totally innocent and they have already served plenty years in prison? Should there be reparations for the person who was wrongfully accused?

In order to establish justice, laws need to be interpreted and judged. When the contents of a law are used to “honor” the criminal's actions the judicial branch will bring justice to the victim and the law. The judicial branch does not prejudice, therefore they judge fairly and justly. The way the judicial branch works makes it so that it establishes justice. In Article Three of the Constitution, it states “No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” This means that the judicial branch is the only branch that can judge whether or not an act is considered treason.

Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was not immediately informed of his Miranda rights, although he was questioned by police. Under the public-safety exception to the law, law enforcement may question a suspect without invoking Miranda if the police have credible reason to believe the suspect may have information about an imminent threat to public safety. Once he was read his Miranda rights, police said Tsarnaev stopped answering questions (Imbriano, 2013). Conclusion Miranda v. Arizona, although nearly 50 years old, stands as one of the most well-known and important Supreme Court rulings. The law, which attempts to balance the rights of the individual with the ability of law enforcement to solve crimes and keep the public safe, has been challenged, upheld, revised, and challenged again through the years.

One primary legislative cause of the difficulties in prosecuting police is the 1986 the United States supreme courts case, Tennessee v. Garner, which did not allows usages of deadly force by an officer unless "the officer has a good-faith belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others" but the rhetorically vague term "good-faith belief" allowed an objective reason to kill and created a barrier in proving an officer is guilty in court system. While this old legislative piece accounts the difficulties in prosecuting police, the traditional unspoken rule of police officers not to report against colleagues cause corruption in the process of prosecution which is another source of

That they are special because their actions have no repercussions? These proposals do not exist in the world since there is a well-established principle in society saying that everyone is accountable for their actions, so Charles I cannot be an exception. After thorough questioning of the defendant, taking into account his responses proves that Charles I is without questionable doubt guilty of the accused crimes. Please set aside the arguments raised by the defense today, which are inferior to those of the prosecution. At the conclusion of the case, we ask that the just ladies and gentlemen of the jury produce a verdict of guilty for the people of the United Kingdom.

Point 1. The collected evidence ought to be suppressed for failure to issue Miranda warnings during a custodial interrogation. Miranda warnings were made mandatory by the Supreme Court to protect the citizenry from hard police interrogation tactics and forced confessions. However, when a private citizen becomes the interrogator outside, the application of Miranda becomes less strict. The Constitution does not restrain a private citizen in the same ways as law enforcement, unless that citizen is acting as an agent of law enforcement.

Then Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that no person would have to be a witness against himself. It gives a person the right to refuse to answer any questions that the prosecutor might ask. The right was created because of the British courts that operated from 1487-1641. These courts believed that a prosecutor did not have to prove a case based on evidence, but rather harassing a defendant into a confession was enough evidence, whether the defendant was innocent or guilty. The right to be free from having to incriminate oneself was a law among nine of the colonies before it was included in the U.S. Constitution.