Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website!
American jury system is a unique thing; not every country in the world has something like that. That’s why a question appears. Is the American jury system still a good idea if not anyone goes after it?
Generally, what’s that? It is a group of citizens (always different from case to case) which hears testimony in legal disputes and make a decision based on what do they think is the truth.
American jury system could be very helpful, as well as cause damage because of making wrong decisions in serious cases. A good example of that is the situation with OJ Simpson. He stated that he did not kill his ex-wife Nicole, and even wore the gloves which were found on the place of murder and said they did not fit his hands, in contrast to the prosecution’s evidence pointing towards the fact that he may have. Because there was (and usually is) conflicting evidence, they must decide exactly what happens. During the presentation of evidence, the prosecution made many serious and huge mistakes which confused the issues and led to additional doubt in the minds of the jurors. After the evidence was brought in, the question presented to the jury was, in essence, “Did OJ Simpson kill Nicole Simpson?” When the government is trying a record in the United States, they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime occurred. If they fail to do that, the person goes free. They did their job and decided that the State did not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that OJ Simpson killed Nicole.
Yes, didn’t prove, and his fleeing from justice, police, the process when he hid the bag with gloves and murder weapon didn’t say to the jury that he was guilty. Moreover, DNA testing wasn’t 100% evidence those days, people simply didn’t believe in its truth.
But we can’t judge by this one event. How many bad guys are now under arrest thanks to the American jury system?
Without it, it would be unfair to listen to what one person (judge) thinks. We suppose, there are three main reasons why the system should stay even now.
- The one reason why it is a good idea is that it During the trial, jurors are usually doing what they are supposed to do. We mean – gathering the evidence which helps to set an innocent person free or a guilty person pay.
- The system could be helpful in very difficult cases. Jury trials should stay because they help to increase the sense of civic duty. It shows proper standards of behavior in society, how to make or improve relationships, and they help to enhance citizen’s involvement in society. The system simply helps citizens to stay involved with the community.
- Another reason of why jury system is a good idea is that it lets citizens participate in the judicial While they’re serving on a court, they’re becoming more and more informed in-laws and courts. Of course, it helps you understand your rights as well. By being there, you are getting more and more knowledge and simultaneously help the judge to find out the truth.
It serves an important purpose: to decide what took place. That is known technically as the “finder of fact.” Without the system, all of the power would be placed in judges, who would make both legal decisions and factual decisions. While this happens when the parties admit to it, a group of six to twelve normal people can weigh the credibility of the evidence and the witnesses perfectly than just one.
Here we have a few more reasons why Americans like their jury system, and that it works well and even emotionally.
What does work well?
- Americans are strong in their civic duty if they ever do get jury duty, for the most part, and vest a genuine interest in getting a trial done properly.
- Judges provide expertise when the jury may have questions on some of the tougher aspects of the
- It’s difficult for the government to game such a system as a jury of peers is notorious for being impossible to bribe or coerce except in TV shows with an evil mega lord mastermind.
What doesn’t work well but is accepted by the American concept of a jury:
- Juries can be manipulated by expensive lawyer teams, but since this is rare then people accept it.
- Technical experts easily move away over the head of the jury and are typically fielded in an adversarial manner.
- Bench trials tend to help with this, but Americans are against the concept of “expert-led” trials.
- Americans are also suspicious of elitism or trusting in the morality of authority figures.
- Jurors tend to be ones who can’t escape jury duty and are the least capable in the fields of law, but the idea that they are a random slice of the population gives a lot of democratic legitimacy to them.
- Statistics show that jurors are mostly NOT a random slice of the population and cut out large swathes of people by their profession, ideology, ethics, ethnicity, religion. The “idea” that they are random holds true in the minds of the people, and that’s what builds their trust in the trial-by-jury.
- Juries can get swayed by public opinion or the nature of the crime
- Suspects are allowed to choose a trial-by-judge in these cases, and it is assumed a suspect is not going to be stupid and choose the wrong kind of trial. Unfortunately, this assumption is based on everyone getting a good lawyer who is not true. As this has less to do with jury trials and more to do with how defense lawyers are paid for it is mostly ignored.
To sum it up, we can say that – yes, looking at all the examples we see that the jury system isn’t perfect. But the reality is, it tends to work quite well. The press makes a big deal, and people are shocked and outraged because it is rare that cases like that of OJ Simpson exist. We have to believe that we are protected, it is essential to feel yourself in safety for all of us, so let’s believe that everything will be alright, and it really will be.