American Jury System Dbq Essay

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.

The argument/famous Supreme Court case Madison vs. Marbury asked us the question should the Judicial Branch be able to declare laws unconstitutional. I think the Judicial Branch should be able to declare a law unconstitutional. I believe this because the judicial branch is very small, they have no other checks on any other branch, and they don’t receive any money. The Judicial Branch is so small.

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).

Jury Duty Jury duty is a very important obligation that every citizen of the United States has bestowed upon them. It is not only a responsibility, but a privilege to be able to serve on a jury. Jury duty is the most direct way to participate in the democracy and the legal system in the United States. Also, as was stated in the video that we watched in class, and then echoed by the person that I interviewed, it is important for the jury to consist of many different people with different backgrounds, and it is important that everyone in the community gets involved with the jury process.

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.

If jurors are easily influenced by arguments, the whole purpose of the system will be invalid. Another factor that should not be overlooked is biases from jury members. The lack of professionalism can make them judge the case on irreverent characteristics like if the defendant is black or white, if they are rich or not, etc… This is strictly prohibited in law courts, but the influences in their brain cannot simply be erased just because someone is in

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.

In Thomas M. Ross’s article, he states, “Juries are criticized for deciding on cases based on prejudice and emotion rather than relying on the evidence and the law.” Juries might have sympathy or hatred for one of the victims based on previous experiences that can be related to the circumstance. This type of discriminatory judgement can lead to unjust

This piece of text evidence supports this, “They [Juries] to make the right decisions on the evidence and come to the right verdicts” (Mendelle). In the article, the author talks about how regardless of the individual shortcomings of the jurors, the juries still give the correct verdict often. The quote reinstates the idea that juries are a fair way of deciding the guilt of others. While this point is a great reason why juries are a fair and effective system, other equally appalling points prove juries are fair.

The success of jury trial largely depends on how the institution plays its role in practice. It can either help the court, or can severely harm its credibility and take the judiciary to worse condition. He also observed that, if the rules are enforced and the procedures implemented justly and fairly, then the jury system will have a better chance of

The jury system has existed for almost 1000 years dating back to the Norman Conquest of 1066. The first jurors acted as witnesses and gave an account of their knowledge and information about cases, however this has evolved and jurors are now the deciders of facts in both civil and criminal cases. In the UK, the jury consists of 12 members of the public, however in other countries this may differ. Statistics show that less than 1% of criminal cases are tried by juries, while 95% of criminal cases are dealt by the magistrates’ courts. Serving on jury is compulsory for those who are qualified and meet the criteria for the jury service.

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

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.

Eventually it was said that a juror must know briefly about the facts of a case before a trial is conducted and the relevance of it today. Although these days only a few cases are attempted by juries, the jury is considered as an important part of the English legal system. In a way, it plays a fundamental role in making sure that the criminal justice system is useful for the public instead of biased leaders. There are twelve

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