The Pros And Cons Of Jury Selection

To the dutiful members of the jury, my team and I thank you for being a part of this painfully tedious process. It is up to you and your civic duty to establish the fate of this case and this man. We highly suggest that you listen to your heart, do you personally believe that this man should be exonerated? Should we allow a man, a creation of the slums and wittingly knows his way around a knife, walk free? There is no doubt that there’s a level of surmounting evidence that he is guilty, he has the track record of a criminal and it was about time that he would murder someone. Imagine being in his shoes, constantly abused by the man who should’ve loved him, growing up in a poor environment, and sent to reform school. Imagine that one day, he

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). This personal bias may be based experiences and might subconsciously affect the decision of the juror. Overall, jurors have a high chance of having bias and affecting the outcome of the case with this

The psychologist is a vital asset to the criminal justice system. The psychologist can examine victims, police officials and various witnesses thus making them ethically obligated to make the right decisions and evaluations. This essay will discuss the roles of psychologist as they work within the criminal justice system. I will Identify and describe the psychologists’ roles within the criminal justice system as it pertains to the applied scientist, the basic scientist, the policy evaluator, and the advocate. I will also provide detailed examples of each of those roles in action within the law enforcement, corrections and court system environments.

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.

A grand jury is composed of twelve people, to determine if there is enough evidence to send an accused individual to trial. Although they may not determine if the accused individual is guilty or not, they can issue a formal document saying there is enough evidence for the prosecutor to take the accused to trial also known as an indictment. According to, Texas Politics Today, “a grand jury may return indictments simply because the district attorney asks them to.” Which in the end is not fair, because the jury may believe that there is not enough sufficient evidence, but because they feel pressured they issue an indictment. In theory, grand juries sound like they are for the common good, but in reality they return ninety- five percent of cases, that have been brought to them.

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. A judge must meet many requirements before he/she is able to judge in court. A judge must have a law degree, a Juris Doctorate, and a numerous amount of other tests and jobs before he/she becomes a judge. Comparing the requirements of a juror and judge, a judge is more qualified to make a fair

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

"Jury System; a system in which the verdict in a legal case is decided by a jury on the basis of evidence submitted to it in court." Starting at eighteen, you become eligible for jury duty – something many have to do as one of our civic duties, however, it wasn 't always this way. As far as historians know, the jury was established by William the Conqueror who brought it to England from Normandy. However, this system that he brought was nothing more than a system that had witnesses who knew of the matter in question to tell the court what they knew.

The witness impacts the jury decision on many cases because the way they are. In the Trayvon Martin case Rachel Jeantel, the witness seemed like an illiterate hood person. The witness was on the stand for a couple hours. The defense would question her and agitate her to prove the jury that Mr. Martin was a hoodlum. They had persuaded the jury to believe that George Zimmerman had killed Trayvon believing he was a danger to himself or others. 19 year-old Rachel Jeantel was the last person to speak to Trayvon. They believed that the witness was “Ghetto Trash.”

The jury selection process is very important because of the specific allowances, which are given to each courtroom. One of the permissions is the right of peremptory challenges, which allows defense attorneys

Some people see this as a civic duty and are proud to serve because they are told to do so in the constitution. It is a very important responsibility that everyone should take seriously because the fate of another person is on his or her shoulders. Juries are there to decide “guilty” or “not guilty” based on the facts and evidence presented. This paper will

In a criminal case, I do not believe the answer is as simple as a yes or no to whether one opts for a jury trial or leave it up to a judge. Recently, in Baltimore, six police officers were charged with criminal offenses by the district attorney in the death of Freddie Gray. One officer resulted in a hung jury and later all charges were dropped. All other officers had a judge either dismiss charges or find them not guilty. Politics were at play in this heavily covered case by national media. I remember watching the news and was surprised to learn that many of the officers were allowing a judge to rule on their case. I think a particular jurisdiction has a lot to do with what is the right decision. Unfortunately, many judges do not represent

In the State Court of California, there is an accused man for murder. The judges are examining the evidence this man has put up showing he is not guilty. Eventually, the police find a footage of someone else in the scene of the murder, so the man who was accused, was set free from jail after one month in a fair, speedy, trial. Now, what was it that allowed that man to prove he was not guilty? If you go down into the roots of the Court System, you will find that it was an Amendment, the Sixth Amendment specifically, that allowed that man, and anyone else accused of a crime that are not guilty, to have a fair trial. The

This essay will briefly discuss the role of the jury and how it works, from the principle behind it, to the method with which members are selected, and to the powers available to jurors. Moreover, it will outline advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury, and it will point out a couple of ways which could ameliorate this type of trial.

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.