Should Jury Trial Still Be An Option 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.

Opponents to the high use of this procedure cite the issue that it removes the public and the jury from the justice system, it is based on coercion, and it understates true crime statistics when criminals plead guilty to lesser crimes. Additionally, innocent people may plead guilty from fear they will be convicted by a jury and face a long jail sentence. (Barkan and Bryjack, Page 250-252)

There are many criticisms surrounding, the jury system currently in use in our Australian legal system, these criticisms have recently been brought into the light over the past few years with many cases, such as the Casey Anthony case where a mother was acquitted of murdering her daughter as the jury stated, after less than 11 hours of deliberation, ‘there was not enough evidence’ when the forensic evidence was clearly stacked against her. This lack of competence by the jurors is a criticism that Lord Denning argued about in What Next in the Law? (1982) he debates that the selection of jurors is far too wide, resulting in jurors that are not competent to perform their task. Lord Denning suggested that the jury party should be selected in much the same process as magistrates are, with interviews and references required, although this initiative has several obvious problems, a more complicated selection process would be much more time-consuming and costly to the Australian tax payer; finding sufficient people willing to take part would prove incredibly difficult and a jury that is intelligent and educated can still be biased, and may be more likely to be so if drawn from a narrow social group. For a trial by jury case to be effective, no bias should exist in the jurors judgments, the jurors should understand clearly their role and key legal terms, and the jury system should represent the community as a whole and its standards and views whilst upholding the rights of the accused and society and remain cost and time effective.

Is the American Jury System still a Good Idea? In the American Judicial System today, there is a choice between trial by jury or bench trial. Trial by jury is used today by selecting jurors from pools of people who are eligible, adult American citizens. Trial by jury is often controversial because of how the jurors are not professionals whereas in a bench trial, a judge is highly educated in law (Doc B).

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.

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.

Guilty or not guilty, all citizens deserve a thorough trial to defend their rights. Formulating coherent stories from events and circumstances almost cost a young boy his life. In Twelve Angry Men, 1957, a single juror did his duty to save the life of an 18 year old boy by allowing his mind to rationalize the cohesive information presented by the court and its witnesses. The juror’s name was Mr. Davis, he was initially the only one of 12 jurors to vote not guilty in reason that the young boy, sentenced with first degree murder, may be innocent. I am arguing that system 1 negatively affects the jurors opinion on the case and makes it difficult for Mr. Davis to convince the other jurors of reasonable doubt.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AMERICA'S JURY SYSTEM Eighteen out of one-hundred people are summoned for jury duty each year. Each jury member a normal person whose decisions are influenced by the world’s culture and affected by their busy schedules. Therefore, Americas jury systems are no longer effective in the twenty-first century, as a result of outside opinions, beliefs, and events taking place in our world. First, jury members in today's society don't have time to recall for jury duty. In fact, jury duty is often dreaded or avoided among Americans.

A flawed jury is what makes for an unfair trial. Juries are a crucial piece of the puzzle which helps create the system we have today, one where it needs to be represented in the right way that makes the justice system an improved one. The judicial system is one where the jury needs to accurately represent the community that the accused resides in, achieving this can impact the community first hand, make it easier to protect the defendant from unfair sentencing, and promote public confidence in the justice system which is what lots of people distrust and lack in. The citizens in a community are the ones that get impacted from the actions of accused in the first hand which is why they need to be accurately shown in the jury.

However they are wrong because some people will not take it serious as it need to be. Citizens should not be required to serve on jury because bias jurors. For example, in the play “Twelve Angry Men” during the deliberation of the verdict some of the jurors showed bias toward the young man on trial because of where he was from. “We 're not here to go into the reasons why slums are

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

The legal professionals in Japan were always against the jury trial system as they did not want lay people to involve in administering justice. Because of this, jury trial could never be popular in Japan. Beside this fact, according to some commentators and researchers, there was another reason for unpopularity of the jury trial system in Japan. The reason was, the defendants, who choose jury trial, had to give up their right to appeal on factual determination made by the jury. Although the acquittal rate in jury trial was higher than the bench trial, jury was less admired by the