Jury System Fair Essay

Under the Sixth Amendment. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to impartial jury. The jury will consider the evidence against the defendant and decide whether to find him or her guilty of the crime. Twelve jurors must agree in order to find a defendant guilty or not guilty. If the jury fails to reach a unanimous verdict and finds itself at a standstill, the judge may declare a mistrial.

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

The original text of the amendment did not specify a particular size for a jury, but it did state that the accused had the right to a trial "by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed. "Over time, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued several decisions related to the size of the jury. In 1898, the Court ruled in Thompson v. Utah that a jury of eight was sufficient in a criminal trial. However, in 1970, the Court ruled in Williams v. Florida that a six-person jury was constitutional. Later, in 1979, the Court upheld the use of six-person juries in state criminal trials in Ballew v. Georgia.

1.Intro The jury system for Australia is not a fair system. There are many fault with the structure of how it is decided and how is picked. The jury should be 100% fair and not biased in any way, if this is not the case a criminal or civil offences could be charged for the wrong thing. Some reasons why the jury system is not a fair system is because Ordinary people may not understand complex legal technicalities, some people are exempt from serving, the jury is not a true cross-section of society and also It is difficult for people to remain completely impartial, especially if they are influenced by the media coverage of the trial.

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,

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.

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.

Lastly, because appointing jurors does not cost much to the government, a wide variety of people are present regardless of prejudice or bias they may have, the jury system is effective as varying views are

The American Jury System is a way for the people of the community to become involved in the judicial system. When court cases arise in some cases a jury will take place. The people on this jury make a decision on if the defendant is either guilty or innocent. This outcome has great power, and it's quite controversial if ordinary citizens should be able to make these big, influential decisions. The American Jury system should be kept because it is a staple of our democracy, allows citizens to be educated on the law, and produces fairer results for those who are accused.

There are .58% of criminal cases that get sent to trial by jury (Doc A). This evidence helps explain why jury trials should not still be an option because even though you might have a better chance with trial by jury but on a very small percentage of people actually are able to get tried by jury's. This pretty much means that you don't really have a trial by jury because of how many people won't get the chance for trial by

“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)

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.

Trials shouldn’t be done in secret way from public eyes because how can you call that fair. Libertyfirstfl.org states that the 6th amendment has multiple clauses within it. Speedy Trial Clause, Public Trial Clause, Right to a Jury Trial Clause, Confrontation Clause, Arraignment Clause, Compulsory Process Clause, and Right to Counsel Clause. Right to jury is crucial to having a fair and just trial. It picks random citizens to sit in a trial, they don’t choose people that might know the defendant.

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,