Jury Duty

In the 20th century all white juries acquitted white defendants who were blamed for killing or harming blacks. Some say this was an example of nullification not selection. During prohibition, they often nullified alcohol control laws because of disagreement with the justice the law had. American juries draw the power to nullify from its right to render a general verdict in criminal cases. This would be the inability of criminal courts to direct a verdict no matter how compelling the evidence,

The movie “Twelve Angry Men” portrayed the theme of prejudice though several of the jurors base their opinions of the case on racist feelings toward the 16 year old boy. This is shown by; “The 4th Juror coldly states that people from slums are more likely to be violent, which offends the 5th Juror, who grew up in a slum. The 10th Juror makes racist statements throughout, and as the deliberation goes on” (Sparknotes) This is relevant to the

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

Over the years, a plethora of court cases have caused Americans to wonder: is our jury system indeed as wondrous as it is conceived to be? To explain, the jury system is the concept of giving the defendant in a trial the option of either having a bench trial, one where a judge alone reaches a verdict, or a trial by jury, one where a group of twelve ordinary citizens is chosen to reach a verdict on the case. One may wonder why a dozen everyday denizens are being endowed with the absolute power over a possibly life or death decision in the life of a neighbor that is unknown to them, but the framers of the United States Constitution believed that this was the most democratic option in making sure that justice is properly served. Explaining further,

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” This quote stated by George Bernard Shaw represents America’s jury system perfectly. We should ultimately eliminate the jury system from court, and use the bench system in all criminal and civil cases. Although there are many reasons why eliminating the jury system is a better choice, many people want to keep the jury system only because we have used it for a long time and they fear change. Without change, progress is impossible and those who want to keep the jury system should change their mind.

This ability is an advantage as it allows for citizens to make decisions on cases whether civil or criminal based on facts as well as the law submitted by the judge to be applied. Other advantages include; the limited power government officials have over one another as well as the public. The presence of a jury allows for there to be varying views which positively affect cases and reduces the risk of a tyranny. Jury duty allows for the public to be part of decisions normally made by government officials which impacts their decisions. It allows for citizens to have a say in the judicial branch of government which is a characteristic of a democracy.

Race can be an important fact when selecting a jury. It’s important to have a jury of different racial, ethnic, gender or religious believes to helps limit racial discrimination. If at any time the prosecutor or the defended feel discriminated by the jury, their attorney can challenge the jury by using the peremptory challenges in Which he or she has The right to challenge a potential juror without disclosing the reason for the challenge.

According to “A Defense of the Jury System,” Juries are criticized for deciding cases based on prejudice and emotion rather than relying on the law. Allowing juries to know little about the law to make decisions regarding

This remarkable courthouse only hosted approximately seven trials in its first year and since then has dropped even lower (Dzur, 2013). The early 20th century was the last time a jury was considered the normal process for dealing with criminal cases, and now the plea deal is king (Dzur, 2013). Simple fact is, today juries hear only a very few cases across the nation (Dzur, 2013). High-ranking members working in the justice system fear that the competence of a jury today is declining with the scientific evidence that is now available (Dzur, 2013). The statistics seem to support this fear.

Citizen Required To Serve? Jury a group of citizens sworn to give a verdict in a legal case on the basis of evidence submitted to them in court. Being able to serve on a jury is an absolute privilege to do for some and one thing that makes this country very different and unique from others. Serving on a jury should not be required for citizens. Some people believe serving on a jury should be a requirement for every citizen.

The judicial system is not always fair and impartial because since its inception it has been used as a means for discrimination and systemic oppression against BIPOC and other marginalized groups. Throughout American history there have been so many tragic examples of injustices carried out by our incredibly flawed judicial system. In fact, the bias within the American judicial system is such a wide-spread issue that it's been depicted in literature countless times to bring forth awareness about the issue. For example, in Reginald Rose´s 1954 play 12 Angry Men, there are several different instances in the book where the jurors discriminate against the defendant, a boy charged with murdering his father because he was Puerto Rican. The boy was

This is stated in Document C in the Jury System Mini-Q “Observers of the American jury system have remarked on its ability to elevate ordinary citizens into self-governors…” This is stating that the jury system is let alone remarkable that it is also a way that will increase the motives of people to present them to the government. On the Importance of the Jury System it states that “The Jury service is a duty of citizenship, similar to paying taxes and voting.” This is saying that people view this as an act of duty that just as paying taxes and voting people have to give back to their government and participate in the jury trial. Another quote from The Role of the Public is “Courts have a responsibility to perform at a higher level of respect to citizens serving as jurors and to improve every aspect of their jury systems.”

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.

The jury trial system allows the verdict to be tried in front of a group of their peers rather than a single magistrate or judge. A large jury increases the chances of an adequate understanding of the verdict’s personal circumstances and characteristics. The jury also helps mitigate the chances of having one individual who may have certain personal biases and prejudices be the sole decider of the fate of the accused. Jurors are usually selected from different backgrounds and races which adds diverse thought and culture to the decision making process. Although jury trials have proven very effective there are disadvantages to the system.

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).