Effectiveness of a Jury Essay

"Today, jurors sometimes leave courtrooms in tears after convicting people they believed were morally (if not legally) innocent, or after witnessing the harsh sentences handed down by judges at the sentencing phase of seemingly minor cases. That is exactly the sort of travesty trial by jury was intended to prevent. If the law were just and justly applied, jurors would have no reason to regret their verdicts, or the sentences that are meted out later by judges." (Trial by Jury Website) This would seemingly encourage the American judicial system to adapt the jury system to meet the needs of our current American society. It is unpleasant for the jurors to make very hard choices concerning the lives of other fellow citizens. It is also hard for the persons who are standing trial to know that their fate is going to rest with people with little or no knowledge of the law.

The jury system of a trial is an essential element of the democratic process. It attempts to secure fairness in the justice system. Traditionally, the jury system has been viewed as a cornerstone of common law procedure. However, the use of the system of trial by jury is on the decline. Today, its use differs, depending on whether (a) it is a civil or criminal matter, and (b) in criminal matters, whether it is a summary or an indictable offence.

The current jury system is based on an almost millennium-old principle found in the Magna Carta (1215). As a result of changes in society since, the system must be seen as potentially outdated. In other words, it may not satisfy the needs of modern society, judged by what the major stakeholders of the criminal justice system expect. Indeed, there are substantial flaws in current jury systems in terms of effectiveness. The two major concerns with jury systems are their representativeness and their levels of competence. The representativeness of juries is essential as their reason for existing is to represent the views of society. Having twelve jurors could be understood to ensure representativeness and eliminate room for bias. However, this does not remove the possibility of juries being biased towards parties. Even if the potential jurors contacted are representative in terms of gender, ethnicity, age and socioeconomic status and though jury duty is a compulsory engagement, 90% of Queenslanders opt out of it. This makes it very likely that juries will not be representative. One example is ethnic diversity. There is likely to be less ethnic diversity in courts because ethnic minorities might not have sufficient language ability or access to interpreters to be jurors. Another example is age. It is likely that retired people

Every day people are convicted of crimes or arrested for other reasons. Once they are convicted they are summoned to court, this begins the jury process. Citizens are randomly chosen to serve on jury duty. The citizens on the jury will use the jury system to determine if the person being accused is guilty or innocent. Trials can become very long or they can be short it just depends on the topic and how long it takes to decide on what the consequences will be. The jury system is the main trial and the main decision of whether or not someone is right or wrong.

I do not believe that the way the jury is selected and the way it operates is the correct way to do it. I believe this due to the fact that not much is known about the people who are selected and that they have no experience in Law. This means that they might not understand the case and they could even be a bit biased.

The role of the jury in criminal

The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution ensures that the defendant has to the right to a jury of their peers. The standard for a jury is usually 12 but the judge can alter that anywhere from 6-12 jurors; there is also two alternatives in the case there is a breech. If a jury is only made up of six jurors, the final verdict must be based on a unanimous vote from all of the jurors.

While evaluating the advantages of a plea jury I found that a plea jury would be under the supervision of the courts and the defendant would give his plea to a guilty plea jury (Appleman, 2010). The plea jury would then decide on the facts to see if the allegations fit the offense, whether the plea was knowing and voluntary and if the sentence proposed is appropriate for the offense. Also, I found that a plea jury’s critical role would be to listen to the defendant’s allocutions instead of explaining his offenses to the judge.

It said that “The traditional bar on jurors actively looking for information about a trial, or making their own investigations, comes under increasing strain now that the Internet makes it possible to look up at least some amount of any person’s history, or to find out fact-specific information about the case that might have been much harder to find out pre-Internet.” It shows how the Juror’s tries to get information from investigation, but with since we have internet it’s harder to get information, or the opposite how it might be much harder without the internet. It also brings up how the jury system can bring criticism about the Jury system. “The Jury system too has attracted criticism. Some of those worried about the excesses of the tort system, for example, have Is the Jury System being Fair to the

Justice Evatt delivered a paper to the Australian Legal Convention which entitled “The Jury System in Australia” in 1936 . Justice Evatt’s thesis of Jury trials was that “in modern day society the jury system is regarded as an essential feature of real democracy”. Jury trials in the nineteenth century were found way before in four colonies Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia . When Trial by Judge alone was first introduced in South Australian thirty eight were held in the Supreme Court between 1989 and 1993, meaning all annual percentage of all criminal trials in the court ranged between 3.9% and 8.9% . The Juries Act SA 1927 was amended many times making some major changes. In 1966, women were introduced in the South Australian Jury system as only men were capable of serving on Juries. An increase to the number of jurors available to contribute in a criminal trial was amended in 2004 . It now states in the Juries Act 1927 under section 6A that if court agrees there are good reasons to add additional jurors of 2 or 3 it can be empanelled for a criminal trial .

This question has left a question in many people’s minds. Does the jury system have the importance we invest into it? The jury is considered as a vital part of the UK law system, the jury system is a gathering of 12 people who sit in civil and criminal trials and make decision with the information collected. The jury system has an approximate 800 years of history. Early jurors in England had different roles compared to the jury system in the 21st century, their position was to act as witnesses which provided reports of local associations which was also called dark ages. However, the role of the jury today is to know as little knowledge about the case before the trial. The Juries

Trial by jury throughout Australia, originates from the British judicial system. Britain’s control of many colonies, including Australia, during the period of the British Empire, was influential in forming a judicial system in the colonies, based on its own. Trial by jury is an important and integral part of the legal system. Many of our legal traditions, such as the number of members of a jury being twelve, originated from Britain. The jury is an important and vital part of Australia's criminal justice system today. In Western Australia, trial by a judge and jury was introduced in the mid 1800’s after the Swan River Settlement.

When the offender is accused of an offence, he or she gets to choose if he or she wants to have a trial by judge or jury. For instance, take into account the evaluation of the pros for a trial by judge. When an offender chooses the trial by judge this allows the offender to direct more of their attention directly to the judge. This will allow the offender to place all their evidence and emotions onto the judge’s hands. When choosing a trial by judge the offender often defends their self, which could lead to a guilty verdict because the offender

The Selection and Role of a Jury in a Criminal Trial This assignment focuses on how a jury is selected and its role in a

This essay will be looking at the advantages and disadvantages of the jury trial. Jury trial is a legal proceeding where a jury makes a decision, which then direct the actions of a judge. The members of a jury are a group of independent citizens. They have no interest in the case before them, nor is their judgment coloured by regular experience of the business of the court. They are “twelve individuals, often with no prior contact with the courts, who are chosen at random to listen to evidence and decide upon matters affecting the reputation and liberty of those charged with criminal offences.” The jury has always been drawn from sections of society but has been made democratic only in the last half century. And now almost all citizen of the United Kingdom are eligible to serve on a jury. But the percentage of criminal cases actually tried by jury is surprisingly low. Nowadays “the magistrates’ courts deal with at least 95 per cent of criminal cases. In practice juries determine the outcome of less than 1 per cent of the total of the criminal cases.” But still the idea of trial by jury has always been seen as a “cornerstone of the English legal system” , and it remains the standard mode of trial for dealing with the most serious types of criminal case. But even though it is established and been in practice for years, people seem to believe that there are disadvantages to jury trails. Nonetheless, the jury system is becoming increasingly controversial. Critics claim that