Jury System Dbq 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

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

As a result, the trial and the jury should be more objective. The jury's verdict on whether the defendant is guilty is essential to the operation of the jury system. Since their decision might have far-reaching effects, they have become an integral element of the trial process (Ruderman, 2020). However, this may also make jurors a troublesome part of the process since they may need to thoroughly examine the material or apply the right roof standards to hand down verdicts. 3 resolve these problems.

I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him!” By allowing every citizen to serve on the jury it can cause the jurors to get off topic and bring in personal matters not needed. If they were selective, verdicts would be made faster and wouldn't allow the jurors to be sidetracked. Those are the reasons why every American citizen should serve on the a jury.

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 the play juror 8 is the only one to vote not guilty in the start. He prevented the defendant from being sent to death without looking into the case and talking about it. If there was just the judge she could’ve sent him away for a death sentence or let him go, but it would be only her to choose which isn’t all that fair. The jury opens up the possibilities of different outlooks on the case. It makes the jurors really think about what the defendant is and what can support

Has the jury system outlived its usefulness and practicality? It is a hotly-debated topic that often divides opinion. Although there are many benefits to the jury system, like the ability for citizens to study law while engaging in real-life experiences and reducing the probability of corruption. But undoubtedly, the disadvantages of the jury system outweigh the advantages. Generally, the cons can be listed as the following: first, the lack of expertise characteristic, second, the presence of deadlocks and mistrials, and third, the waste of effort and money along with it.

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.

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. When the judge gives you direction to please disregard that statement. How can you disregard information that you have heard?

Foreman (Juror 1): He is an assistant football coach at a High School. Elected as the foreman of the jury, he has the responsibility to keep the jury process organized. Although he is not particularly bright, he is dogged. Initially, he struggled to keep up with his authority. Eventually, he managed to weight to his authority as the foreman as well as his opinions.

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 justice system that relies on twelve individuals reaching a life-or-death decision has many complications and dangers. The play Twelve Angry Men, by Reiginald Rose, illustrates the dangers of a justice system that relies on twelve people reaching a life-or-death decision because people are biased, they think of a jury system as an inconvenience, and many people aren’t as intelligent as others. The first reason why Reiginald illustrates dangers is because people can be biased or they can stereotype the defendant. The Jurors in Twelve Angry Men relate to this because a few of them were biased and several of them stereotyped the defendant for being from the slums. The defendant in this play was a 19 year old kid from the slums.

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. Trial by jury has been a part of the criminal justice system since the 12th century (Davies, 2015), it is considered an ancient right and a symbol of liberty (Hostettler, 2004). It creates no precedent and it can decide challenging cases equitably without making bad law, it also brings members of the public into the administration of justice and into an understanding of legal and human rights (Hostettler,

The American Government is made up of three branches: judicial, legislative, and executive. Americans are very fortunate to have a judicial system in the United States, which is based on the idea that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The same problems still happen today in 2018 that happened in 1957 when the movie Twelve Angry Men by MGM was made. Common reasons jury duty is not popular include taking time off work, not getting the same amount of pay as if one is at work, and simply just not wanting to be there. People will always be biased from their own experiences.

Although the rationale of peremptory challenges, ironically, would be for the defendant and the prosecution to get rid of any potentially biased jurors, lawyers may instead use their peremptory challenges to form a jury that would pass a more favourable verdict. As lawyers are also not required to explain their decisions in striking out jurors in most cases, the makeup of the jury can thus be heavily imbalanced. However, as a judge would be required to not let any preconceived bias affect the administering of justice, the accused would hence receive a fairer treatment as compared to juries that might have any bias towards either the prosecution or the defendant. With juries also not being required to explain their decisions, any bias that the jury might have would not be easily found and challenged. Especially in cases where the death penalty is concerned, it is all the more important that juries mete out a fair verdict.