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 jury system originated in England hundreds of years ago. The colonists brought the jury system from England to the United States. In 1733, John Zenger, a printer, printed a newspaper critical for the British Government. His attorney convinced the jury to be in favor for Zenger because his criticisms were true. 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 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
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.
After watching 12 Angry Men, I was very inspired by juror 8 ' argument techniques. His eye contact, body language, tone, the persuasive techniques he used like induction, pathos, ethos and logos should be studied and analyzed in a very detailed, precise way. These factors were strong enough to change 11 angry men 's mind and to vote not guilty, even juror 3 who is the most stubborn. 12 Angry Men 's message toward individuals and the society as a whole is to think once and twice before judging, how to have a successful, convincing argument and most importantly, it encourage everyone to stand up for your opinion. One of the reasons why everyone should speak up is sometimes other people are thinking the same way, but they are not brave enough to express their opinion.
The last danger to the justice system is jurors on the jury duty have no common sense to figure out the truth behind cases. One example is in the play “Twelve Angry Men” juror 10 says about juror 8 “ He’s a common ignorant slob. He don’t even speak good English” (Rose 326)! Then juror 11 corrects juror 10 saying “He doesn’t even speak good English” (Rose 326). Also anyone that is a United States citizen and of the age of 18 is allowed to be called to be on jury duty.
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.
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).
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.
No. 8: I think that the jury system we have today has its own advantages and disadvantages. For example, a jury that consists of jurors who are biased could be manipulated by ‘outsiders’ through bribery or some jurors, as we have discussed before, might have some personal prejudices/beliefs that may affect their decision making. But there are some advantages as well because the decision that is made by the jury is thought out very carefully by a group of people. Interviewer: [gathers all his papers]
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.
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.
The results of these informal practices only proved that the accused wasn't guilty because the arguments were not valid enough to incriminate him. Leadership did emerge differently from a small group setting because a designated leader should not let a group member overtake his position. So Juror #8 as a initiator should have never tried to take the position of Juror #1. But it was needed for him to do that so that the group could reach into a correct decision. If Juror #8 wouldn't have voiced his opinion then maybe this innocent young men could have been acquitted.
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
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.