Most of the jurors wanted to settle on having reasonable doubt, so another jury could be called in. Reasonable doubt is when there’s not enough evidence or if the jury is not completely sure a person is guilty. When reasonable doubt is present in a case, it means they cannot convict the person because they are not sure if they are truly guilty. Juror Eight would not settle for this and continued to try and change the minds of the jury, so an innocent kid would not be convicted.
Should Police Officers Wear Body Cameras? Every year innocent people are put in jail. The issue about this is that it is very hard to decide who is right. When it comes to court trials, there has to be enough evidence to prove whether the person is guilty or innocent. One could be lying, but make it believable.
Most juries do not get selected randomly. Despite the fact that the jury duty warnings acquire a random gathering to the courthouse, the two sides of a case have the privilege in many countries to strike a specific number of members of the jury from the case to get to the required number, which means that it is not random. Long trials usually create hasty verdicts due to the fact that the individuals face severe restrictions during the trial. So, when the trial is going on for an extended period of time, the jurors rush to get back to their normal lives, hence, making a hurried judgement without the ability to think properly, to the extent that an innocent individual may be punished for a crime that he/she may not even have commited. Other than that, most jurors do not have a background in law.
Jurors should not know anything about a specific case and not follow public affairs and read the news (Doc F). When a person is selected to be part of a jury, they have to say an oath stating that they will not use their emotions to determine the verdict of a trial. If a juror is caught using their emotions, they will be fined for a crime called perjury. Since there are twelve people in a jury, there is a variation of opinions when the jury decides a verdict. But, a judge is more professional and knows how to only use the evidence provided and be less biased.
No. 8: Yes, I do… [sighing and shaking head slowly] It was hard and some of the jurors were just hard headed, we were starting to think that we were a hung jury but in the end, we came to a unanimous conclusion that the boy is not guilty. Interviewer: One last thing, do you have any problems or opinions with today’s jury system? No. 8: I think that the jury system we have today has its own advantages and disadvantages.
Likewise, saying that nobody proved that boy isn’t guilty, so he is guilty, involves error. Fallacy 3: ‘How come you believed her? She’s one of “them” too, isn’t she?’ – This statement by juror 8 involves ‘Attack on the person’. Instead of dealing with the fact that the lady had to say, the juror focused on lady, which can not justified relevant in discussion. Fallacy 4: ‘You’re right.
With the submitted, final paper, I felt that I didn’t even have to try at all! For such skilled writers as I, it was easy in the long term, but for the short term it was hard and filled me with such rage and hatred that I had to output my emotions into this article. For something as monumental as this, for a topic as dire as this, 500 words is not enough. A more suitable amount would be 1000, or at the very least 750. 750 would give enough to elaborate on the issue and how our society now should still care.
But when it comes to reaching a verdict in the case, #4 is completely unsympathetic, saying, the boy's entire story was flimsy and he also claimed that he was at the movies. He couldn't even remember what pictures he saw and that it was little ridiculous. While he might seem cold and harsh, Juror #4 is actually not all that bad. For one thing, he's totally willing to be swayed by evidence. He tosses aside some of the early arguments about the defendant's innocence not because he's prejudiced, but because he doesn't believe
There are jurors who can make a decision who is right or not. The jurors are the reflection of the society who comes from them. Atticus states: “I am not idealist to believe firmly in the integrity of our courts and in the jury system. That is no ideal to me; it is a living, working reality… Gentlemen, A court is only as sound as its jury is only as sound as the men who make it up.” As Atticus knows that white community has some prejudges about black people, he assumes the jurors will find Tom Robinson guilty and Atticus loses. The important detail is in the jury that all the jurors are white people except for black people.
However, I think they could have been more reliable if the intervals between each weight were constant. I started off by going every 50 grams, which then went to every 100 grams. I think it would have given the data results more precision and the pattern and outcome of the graph might have had a better trendline. Fortunately with the materials I had in the experiment, there was some precision, as I was the only one to control the board. Perhaps the one downfall was my method as I had to perform my experiment 2 times before getting the data I wanted, because I was confused on the data I was receiving the first time as they were all the similar.
It was not only the system that had flaws but also the people on the board. The prosecutors "opposed testing, arguing that it would make no difference" whether or not those being convicted got DNA tested (Garrett 1). Confessions was one of the causes that often led to the downfall of those innocently convicted. In the case of Jeffrey Deskovic, the police officer was supposed to conduct the polygraph examination. The detective for this case explained that he did not actually conduct the examination but only tested "Deskovic 's truthfulness" and to "get
To my understanding, this trial has been going on for the longest time to no avail. Everyone has mentioned to me that the legal system is incredibly slow, but I had no idea it would take years in order to prosecute someone fairly. The United States legal system should be faster in order to accommodate all those involved, since it is a fairly thorough
In reality, and type of evidence used in a criminal case should be physical. Memories are not a form of physical evidence and therefor should not be used. The use of physical evidence in criminal cases has a far better chance of convicting the true criminal, verses using memories or thoughts as evidence, there is no way to back up the evidence if it is based off of a memory. There have been a numerous amount of cases that have been dismissed due to the jury not believing in the repressed memories. It’s impossible to have a strong case when the jurors do not even believe the information given to
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
It is very inhumane to make someone die extremely slowly, especially for hours at a time. There is a huge misconception about how lethal injection is very humane and why everything else is cruel. Many people think that because there is no bloodshed in the process of killing, that it is more humane. However, it is obvious that if it takes someone almost two full hours to die, compared to a few seconds of bloodshed, it is more humane to use the firing squad. Next, the cost between the