Feb. 09, 2018
Should the American jury system still exist? You 're accused of a crime you know you didn 't commit, how would you feel if when you went to court you didn 't get to have a jury to have a better chance of the verdict siding with you, and not get accused of a crime. The judge immediately decides your guilty and you 're put on probation , faced with charges you don 't have the money to pay ,or even get sent to jail. “ The jury system arose in England hundreds of years ago. If there was a crime committed in the community, the accused was brought to a jury. 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 …show more content…
The Seventh Amendment guarantees that a persons accused of a crime can have a trial by jury .Getting rid of the jury system completely disown the Seventh Amendment also the Seventh Amendment protects us and or the persons getting accused of a crime from too much government power and control. So one reason that the government should keep the American jury system is because the Seventh Amendment guarantees trial by jury and keeps the government from gaining too much control. According to John Gastil and Phil Weiser “ the farmers of the united states constitution viewed jury service as a critically important feature of self-governance and enshrined (guaranteed) the right to serve on juries in the seventh amendment (Jury Service). This is just one of many reasons the jury system should still be a role in our nation 's criminal offence
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
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
Compared to other countries, America is a land of freedom and endless rights. For example one of the rights are freedom of speech, why not express that feeling of power? It 's understandable that people do not want to serve on a jury, because of time not well spent in their opinions. As a
Opponents to the high use of this procedure cite the issue that it removes the public and the jury from the justice system, it is based on coercion, and it understates true crime statistics when criminals plead guilty to lesser crimes. Additionally, innocent people may plead guilty from fear they will be convicted by a jury and face a long jail sentence. (Barkan and Bryjack, Page 250-252)
Our rejection of simple-majority jury decisions, I believe, was deeply-rooted. In the 1700’s, Sir William Blackstone made his opinion clear that a jury trial was the most “transcendent privilege” any person can hope for. 3 Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 379 (1768). That no state can take away your property or liberty without the “unanimous consent of twelve of his neighbors and equals,” was a great comfort to Blackstone, as it should be to all of us. Id. John Adams believed that a unanimous jury is the thing that “preserves the rights of mankind.”
Americans have control over the legislative and the executive branch of government by being able to elect leaders and think up an idea for a law. Even though the people do not get to elect judges in the judicial branch, they get to be a part of it themselves. The jury system encourages citizens to show their citizenship. Furthermore, it turns ordinary people into self-governors (Doc C). By people being apart of the jury system they are “promoting self-governance and civic participation” while they decide if a person is guilty or not guilty (Doc C).
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.
Being a US citizen has its perks, but knowing the amendments to the Constitution is something every citizen should consider, especially the first. Freedom of speech is one of the most important. If people want to share their opinions on how the government is doing, they are able to do so without the fear of getting in trouble with the law. It’s also a way to defend one’s self from courts but in an unharmful way. Freedom of religion is another right to the amendment that is also very important.
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.
Is the American Jury System still a Good Idea? In the American Judicial System today, there is a choice between trial by jury or bench trial. Trial by jury is used today by selecting jurors from pools of people who are eligible, adult American citizens. Trial by jury is often controversial because of how the jurors are not professionals whereas in a bench trial, a judge is highly educated in law (Doc B).
This was determined from way back when America was first being created. Originally the U.S was control by the British but one of the main reasons for our independences from them other than the fact that the U.S. did not like their high taxes but also was because the jurors and their rights. According to the video “Annenberg Classroom: Juries” when a judge did not like the juries verdicts they were fine and threatened to have their nose cut off. American wanted their judicial to be fair and equal for all. However, they are wrong in the fact that all citizens should need to serve on the jury because people will misuse this power and will not truly understand their effect on the case and more importantly the people live on trail.
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.
When people think of a good judge they typically think of somebody who is fair, not bias and has some sort of experience. However, in today’s society, particularly in the United States, our judicial selection methods are not made to select judges on their ability to reason well and rule impartially (Carter and Burke, 6). On top of that, judges have no actual training before they become part of the judiciary. The only training they receive is in school when they are studying the law. Sometimes when they pursue an apprenticeship with a judge they also get a little bit more experience or insight into a judge’s job.
They have to decide important matters, verdicts, without giving reasons about their decision (Hostettler, 2004); they can nullify a verdict even if the evidence is overwhelming (Joyce, 2013). Furthermore, juries are too expensive, prolong the length of the trial (Davies, 2015) and the guilty can walk free, while the innocent is convicted (Joyce, 2013). In addition, jurors should be representative of society, but it is not
In a New York City, an 18-year-old male from a slum is on a trial claiming that he is responsible for his father death by stabbing him After both sides has finished their closing argument in the trial, the judge asks the jury to decide whether the boy is guilty or not The judge informs the jury decided the boy is guilty, he will face a death sentence as a result of this trial The jurors went into the private room to discuss about this case. At the first vote, all jurors vote guilty apart from Juror 8 (Henry Fonda), he was the only one who voted “Note Guilty” Juror 8 told other jurors that they should discuss about this case before they put a boy into a death sentence