The Jury System Is Not Fair Essay

This racial discrimination has led to a discriminatory manner that punishes blacks who victimized whites more severely compared to whites who victimize blacks. Even though race has been abolished as a legally relevant factor in capital sentencings, there are still variations in capital sentencing patterns along racial lines. The author tries to answer the question of how a system that tries to design itself as a racially neutral system can still have racial variations in capital sentencing. The author argues that there is a link between race and empathy in mitigation. The author conducted a study that focused on juror race and receptivity to mitigation and defendant race.

So, there is no such thing as a fair trial because juror members can go in favor of one side of the

Jurors should not know anything about a specific case and not follow public affairs and read the news (Doc F). When a person is selected to be part of a jury, they have to say an oath stating that they will not use their emotions to determine the verdict of a trial. If a juror is caught using their emotions, they will be fined for a crime called perjury. Since there are twelve people in a jury, there is a variation of opinions when the jury decides a verdict. But, a judge is more professional and knows how to only use the evidence provided and be less biased.

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.

2. example 1 Firstly Ordinary people may not understand complex legal technicalities, these people may not be educated in the concept of law and maybe not even educated properly. Some people may have been educated in a completely different field and have no idea what any of the case means. This could cause the jury to loose interest and just go with what everyone else is saying because they have no idea what is going on. A lot of society have no idea about the legal requirements and what actually is right and wrong and what an offence actually is.

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

A jury is not trained to decide someone’s fate, which is why a judge, as a trained lawyer, should choose the

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.

Juries according to dictionary.com consist of a group of people normally 12 individuals who are provided with facts about a court case in order to give a verdict. As a democracy, the United States has juries in certain cases in order to maintain law and order and for the right of freedom to be continually exercised by every American Citizen. Jury members are selected from a list based on their voter’s registration and or driver’s license to go through certain procedure to determine qualifications for jury duty. The procedure is called voir dire and persons who showcase bias, possible relation to the case, or are not fit to make decisions concerning the case are removed. Jurors are then given information on the case and get to listen to both sides of the case in order to make a conclusion.

“According to the bottom source, 88% of bench trials result in a conviction and 87% of criminal trials result in a conviction.” (Document A) Juries are required to consider only the evidence presented in court and not be influenced by external factors such as media coverage or public opinion. This ensures that the decision-making process is based solely on the facts of the case and not on any preconceived notions or biases. In summary, juries promote fairness and impartiality in the legal system because they are representative of the community, consider only the evidence presented in court, deliberate to reach a consensus, are instructed on the law by judges, and act as a check on the power of judges and

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

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.

In the article of Connect US “… prosecutors and defendants to have limited removal power over the formation of the jury so that it can seem fair to both sides in the case. ”(Chief, Editor) This makes it where both parties have some leeway to either stay with the chosen jury or replace someone if they feel that it will be biased for one side. Also having a trial by jury highly eliminates bias because of the twelve people, which makes it harder if a jury to make everyone vote guilty or not guilty. It’s important to know someone’s background and what condition they are in before being given an important task such as jury duty since they are contributing to either putting someone behind the bar or releasing them back to society, in the article Connect US, “…Judges and lawyers have the opportunity to question each one to see if they can be fair and impartial.”

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.

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