Jury System Dbq

(p. 371) This exemplifies how people on the jury wanted to believe in Simpson’s innocence and how the defense purposefully created the jury to their advantage by utilizing the bias present within the public. Regardless of claims and assumptions in opposition, one can easily see how bias for O.J.’s innocence heavily impacted the

Jerry Kang’s Ted Talk and his article “Implicit Bias in the Courtroom” link implicit and explicit bias to attitudes and behaviors. Implicit bias was the primary focus for both, and in his study he was able to measure implicit bases and how if effects behavior by using the Implicit Association Test (IAT). He argues that implicit bias seems to predict to some degree our attitudes and behavior towards other people. In his article, he explains two situation, criminal and civil employment, cases within a courtroom where bias leading up to sentencing, plea deals, hiring, and verdict are all impacted by the implicit bias of the judge and the jury. To begin his argument he demonstrates how police encounters, charging and plea deals, trials, and sentencing are all affected by implicit bias.

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

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.

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,

With a jury that cares about everything but the trial, how is the defendant suppose to be given a fair trial? He isn’t. The last piece of evidence is cartoon 3, where a dog is being judged by his natural enemies, feline (Document E). These ‘jurors’ all hate the dog and no matter what the evidence is, the dog will be guilty. It applies to our system with the notion that a suspect is hated by jurors because the media accuses them of being guilty before the trial begins.

A majority of citizens see jury duty as some sort of punishment, which is made clear by popular television shows and other forms of media, which greatly diminishes the value of the jury system. In cases where the media plays a major role, such as the Casey Anthony case, jurors can be endangered after a verdict is made (Document D, 295). A woman was told that Anthony was found not guilty, and she said that Anthony would not be accepted back into the community and would have to move away. Jurors of the case who came to the verdict would also be in danger of being ostracized by the community for their unfavorable decision; if these citizens had known about the outcry that would follow the verdict, they most likely wouldn’t have served on the jury at all. A total of 5,082 trials were jury trials in one year, which was a small fraction of all cases tried in the same year (Document A, 289).

As the ideals of jurors being high and trustworthy are not always upheld due to the occasional bad juror, majority verdicts are a better technique of ensuring fair and just

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.

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.

But in majority of the cases jurors are older. When the juror is younger they were more likely to find a defendant not guilty compared to the older juror. The evidence that would be compelling to me as a juror is when a small child is involved. There are so many cases now that shows how people are abusing the children and even killing them. While they are in a fit of rage.

Leadership and roles are depicted throughout the whole movie by many different jurors. The designated leader of the jury group was Juror #1. Juror #1 was when they first entered into the room but Juror #8 took the emergent role when he declined to agree with a guilty verdict. His rejection to agree in a guilty verdict was crucial since he voiced his uncertainty to the evidence at a early stage.

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.

These people are dangerous and don’t need big reason to kill someone.(This is an example of Prejudice too) Perception Discussion of elevated train (0:18:05) Could hear the argument (0:19:24) Discussion of lady's testimony (1:21:21) In all three situations Jurors organizes the information and translates it into something meaningful and comes to conclusion which results into making others to switch their vote from guilty to not guilty.. Representativeness heuristic "

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