The criminal justice system faces multiple accusations for not standing up to the “innocent until proven guilty” standards. While the legal system has fought to keep this statement true, the challenges still exist. One of these is a proper trial that is both unbiased and without error. The setting for a proper trial includes an impartial jury selection to follow the proper procedures of the courtroom. Selection of the jury is an important task and serving on a jury is considered by the United States as the civic duty of the community. The jury selection process is very important because of the specific allowances, which are given to each courtroom. One of the permissions is the right of peremptory challenges, which allows defense attorneys …show more content…
Furthermore, if a defendant could provide a “prima facie” case, the ruling could be altered. Prima facie means that if a defendant could present a case of factual evidence to prove a pattern of discrimination in the jurisdiction, then the case can be presented to the court. Swain’s case is important because it presented a significant argument against the use of peremptory challenges. The ruling however, provided not protection for Hispanics or African Americans from racially provoked peremptory challenges. The use of these challenges denies African American’s and Hispanics the chance to be tried by an impartial jury of their peers. However, unless an individual could access the sealed records of peremptory strikes, a defendant’s ability to begin an appeals case proving racial discrimination was difficult to impossible. Until the case of Batson v. Kentucky, twenty one years after Swain v. Alabama, the ability to present a case of racial discrimination was nearly impossible. Baston v. Kentucky established that a defendant may try to create a prima facie caseand the state holds the burden to find the racial neutral evidence to explain whether the peremptory challenge was used properly. This right to challenge also stands if a white defendant believes minorities have been purposefully removed from their
The United States Criminal Justice system has a unique way of approaching and handling criminal trials. In criminal trials there are important court room members with specific roles and certain court room procedures that must be followed. The court room members include the jury, the judge, the prosecution, and the defense. Some of the procedures of a criminal trial are arraignment, preliminary hearing, the trial itself, opening statements, direct examination, cross examination, closing arguments and the verdict. Each court room member’s goal is to fulfill their responsibility and to help justice be served.
The jury system originated in England hundreds of years ago. The colonists brought the jury system from England to the United States. In 1733, John Zenger, a printer, printed a newspaper critical for the British Government. His attorney convinced the jury to be in favor for Zenger because his criticisms were true. After this trial, it gave ordinary citizens the freedom of speech and the power to go against the king.
Our Constitution has long required the criminally accused to be tried by their peers. The question before us today is whether Florida’s death sentencing scheme violates the Sixth Amendment in light of the decision in Ring v. Arizona., 536 U.S. 584 (2002). We hold that it does violate the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. I
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
It truthfully followed the Federal Judicial procedure of procuring a jury that could be used in a court of law. While the utilization of jury consultants had been dramatized, the film demonstrated the role of a jury consultant in such a way that glorifies its usage. There may be a time and place for the use of jury consultants; however, until the disadvantages of its utilizations are recognized and rectified, it will remain a perversion within the judicial
“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 case was not just an event in history, but a strong point that supported and still supports equality to this day. People can use this case to help support their reasoning for what they believe in and why certain actions should
The play “Twelve Angry Men” shows that relying on twelve people for a life sentencing situation could be bad for the justice system. The justice system could be bad in at least three ways by people being biased, fighting for the wrong side, and people having no common sense. Usually others opinions cause the justice system to be worse than it has to be. A danger of relying on twelve individuals in a court system means that there are some that would be biased about the case. Juror 5 was biased for relating this case to himself because he was from the slums and so was the boy on trial.
A jury is a group of twelve people that are over eighteen who determine if the accused is guilty at the end of a criminal trial. (fedcourt, 2023) If chosen from the electoral roll for jury duty, the person must attend unless they have a criminal record, a part of the legal system, have health reasons or served jury duty in the past twelve months. (Courts Administration Authority, 2023) The jury system requires reform to avoid a repeat of the Chamberlain case as complex information can be too hard to understand and the accountability of jurors is not high when making their verdict.
The American jury system has been around for centuries but all of a sudden, people are trying to change it. Hundreds of years ago in England, the first of the jury systems were adopted. When there was a crime, the accused was brought before a judge and jury (B.E.). The jury, a group of twelve white men, from the area the crime was committed, heard the case and all of the evidence (B.E.). Those 12 men, decided whether or not the person being accused was guilty or not.
Supreme Court Decisions Setting Precedent Discrimination may not seen as big a problem today, but people had to fight for that problem, and court cases set precedents for today. The case of Plessy versus Ferguson and Brown versus Board of Education helped change the way we view discrimination today. The case of Plessy versus Ferguson decided that segregation was legal as long as everything was equal. But on the other hand, Brown versus Board of Education included separate but equal schools made African-American children feel inferior to the white children. 1896, Supreme Court heard the Plessy versus Ferguson case.
No. 8: I think that the jury system we have today has its own advantages and disadvantages. For example, a jury that consists of jurors who are biased could be manipulated by ‘outsiders’ through bribery or some jurors, as we have discussed before, might have some personal prejudices/beliefs that may affect their decision making. But there are some advantages as well because the decision that is made by the jury is thought out very carefully by a group of people. Interviewer: [gathers all his papers]
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.
A group of juror comprising of 12 men from diverse backgrounds began their early deliberations with 11 of ‘guilty’ and 1 of ‘not guilty’ verdicts. Juror 8 portrayed himself as a charismatic and high self-confident architect. Initially, Juror 1 who played the foreman positioned himself as self-appointed leader of the team in which has led his authority to be challenged as his leadership style lacked in drive and weak. In the contrary, Juror 8 is seen as the emergent leader considering his openness to probing conversations while remaining calm. Implying this openness to the present, it has become crucial that a good decision relies on knowledge, experience, thorough analysis and most importantly critical thinking.
In this paragraph, the advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury will be discussed. The main advantages are that juries introduce community values into the legal process and can influence the system (Joyce, 2013); they can achieve a sense of equity and fairness without enforcing unjust laws; in addition, juries are independent and neutral (Davies, 2015). Moreover, they guarantee participation from the public in a democratic institution (Hostettler, 2004), and represent the population thanks to the randomness with which jurors are decided (Davies, 2015). On the other hand, the most important disadvantages are that jurors have no prior contact with the courts, no training (Hostettler, 2004) and therefore they lack knowledge of law, courtroom proceedings (Joyce, 2013), and lack of ability to understand the legal directions (Thomas, 2010). Moreover, they must face evidence which is highly technical (Hostettler, 2004).