Flawed Jury Essay

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

However, the Court also noted that larger juries might be necessary in certain cases to ensure a fair trial. Despite the Court's rulings, some critics argue that a six-person jury is not large enough to provide an adequate representation of the community and that it may be more susceptible to biases and errors. However, others argue that smaller juries can be more efficient and can still provide a fair trial with proper safeguards and procedures in place. This is an important part of our lives because it helps ensure that people accused of crimes get a fair trial. Having a jury of a certain size can affect the outcome of a trial.

Coincidentally White As Reconstruction drew to a close in early 1877, a national debate about the proper selection of jury pools came to the forefront. Two major Supreme Court cases highlight this debate: Virginia v. Rives and Ex Parte Virginia, both of which stemmed from the killing of Aaron Shelton in Patrick County, Virginia. Following a seemingly unjust verdict given by an all-white jury pool in the murder trial, the defense attorneys petitioned a federal district judge, Alexander Rives. Rives not only took over the case, but also "charged a racially mixed federal grand jury" to "consider whether to indict state judges in the five counties from which the jurors were drawn" (HBS Rec.

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

The American Jury System offers the United States citizens an opportunity to be proven guilty or innocent when a crime has been committed. The twelve person jury system was established in England hundreds of years ago. Originally this system was made up of twelve men and this was huge because they had the power to go against what the judge wanted in court. There are many vital points as to why our American jury system is successful; jury trials by the numbers, ownership by jury members towards the accused, how reliable or unreliable evidence is viewed by jurors, gender balance and the detailed screening process in which jurors are selected.

Juries are selected at random from the community, ensuring that the trial is not biased towards any particular group or individual. The use of juries in the legal system provides a system of checks and balances. “Of course trial by Jury is one of our sacred cows.” (Document B) The jury acts as a counterbalance to the power of judges and prosecutors, ensuring that no one person or group has too much influence over the outcome of the case.

The story “A Jury of Her Peers” by Susan Glaspell is a devastating story that brought two women together to help find the true motive behind Minnie Foster’s decision to murder her husband. The main theme throughout this short story is the theme of connections; Glaspell uses symbolism, and diction to demonstrate this theme. Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale work together to connect several different pieces of evidence in order to find the truth behind Mr. Wright’s killing. Not only are Mrs. Peter’s and Mrs. Hale using the connecting theme to solve the murder of Mr. Wright, but they also use it through both of their individual connections to Minnie Foster. They connect to her through sympathy as they discover reasons that may have encouraged her want

A dead bird, a dead man, a jailed wife, and five people to investigate such things. In “A Jury of Her Peers” in order to find the guilty culprit, there was a need to find a motive. The men would spend all day searching for the reason someone would murder the Mr. Wright, and so would the women. When the women finally did find a motive, they would hide it from the men. They had the right to do so because they themselves had felt the same way Mrs. Wright did, the men were being disrespectful, and the women were dismissed from the men’s sides to look upon things with no significance.

A Jury of Her Peers by Susan Glaspell involves an investigation of the murder of Mr. Wright after he was strangled to death in his bed by a rope. His wife, Minnie Wright, is the leading suspect since she was in the bed with him when the murder occurred. Mr. Peters, the sheriff, Mr. Hale, the farmer who found Mr. Wright dead, and Mr. Henderson, the county attorney, all return to Minnie’s house to try to find the reason why she killed her husband. Mrs. Peters, the sheriff's wife, and Martha Hale, the farmer’s wife join the men, but to bring Minnie a few things from her house up to the prison where she is staying. From the very beginning of the story, the men are all very sure of themselves and belittle the two women who had tagged along.

There are three main reasons jury trials should not still be an option: The jury can easily call you guilty by the way that you look, one person can just guess if they are guilty and then sway the whole jury and mess up the outcome, and people might say that you have a better chance of winning your case in a trial by jury but only 1 in 100 cases make it to that because of plea deals. One reason why jury trials should not still be an option is the jury is they are randomly selected and they can easily call you guilty by the way that you look. Evidence supporting this is "We the jury find the defendant to be as guilty as he looks." This supports it because of the fact that the lead juror is saying that he finds him guilty by the way he looks, in another words he is discriminating him. This evidence explains why jury trials should not still be an option because half of the time the jury just gets to judge someone by the way that they look.

"A Jury of Her Peers" by Susan Glaspell is a short story that explores the theme of gender roles, justice, and isolation. The story revolves around a murder investigation in a rural area in which a woman, Minnie Foster, is suspected of killing her husband. While the male characters are focused on doing their jobs, the female characters uncover the truth about the abuse and neglect that Minnie suffered, leading them to discover Minnie Wright did not experience a peaceful lifestyle with her husband. Through the portrayal of the women in the story and the symbolic imagery, Glaspell highlights the oppressive nature of gender roles and the importance of empathy and understanding in seeking justice. In “A Jury of Her Peers,” Susan Glaspell outlines

“The boy is five feet eight inches tall. His father was six feet two inches tall. That’s a difference of six inches. It’s a very awkward thing to stab down into the chest of someone who’s half a foot taller than you are. ”-(Juror two, 54)

Biased juries ruin lives. The reasons behind biased juries vary, but majority of the time it is because of the jury’s own personal morals. Juries’ morals range from racism to simply having a bad experience with the defendant. With biased and unfair juries an appeal can be extremely important to the defendant. In the 1950’s segregation and discrimination were at the highest, this did not help Black men and women.

An unfair jury is only one of the aspects of racism seen in the court system. Throughout the decades, racism has been seen in the court system in literature, cases in the 1930s and cases today. Racism in the court system is not only seen in real life, but also

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).