Most Americans dread the appearance of a jury summons in their mailbox. Many will do all they can to avoid serving on a jury. A large number refuse to show up. Can a jury of unwilling participants, randomly selected and not clever enough to escape jury duty ever really render an impartial and fair verdict?
Considering the movie 12 Angry Men and your own experience, is the jury system fair? What would make it more fair? Would you rather have a judge (a bench trial) or a jury (a jury trial) decide a case that you were involved in?
--Cicerone
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
The theory of a jury is great, however it isn't realistic. People don't want to do anything they are forced to do. ESPECIALLY NOT AMERICANS! If it doesn't directly benefit us, it’s not worth our time for consideration, much less effort. I propose something a little more conservative. You could either put a minimum time limit on the jury's meeting, or you could recruit people who wanted to be on a jury such as our brave teacher. This could pose problems, however they could be fixed simply by pulling jury members from across the country. The government would of course have to pay for the flight and hotel.
I don't know. If everyone on the jury was like the character of henry ford from the movie, then everyone would have a fair trial. However, this is too idealistic and unfortunately, because many jury members are unreliable, I think that it might be better to just have the judge decide. The judge has plenty of experience and knowledge to make good and fair decisions. But then on the other hand, it is kind of comforting to know that there are 12(?) people helping to decide what to do instead of just relying on one person...
I think Chris's suggestion to recruit people may be the best solution to this problem. But then this would defeat the point of having a 'random' and 'impartial' jury... it would be too easy for someone to be recruited in order to ... i guess 'cheat'...haha...am I making sense?
anyways, I'm confusing myself and honestly, I have no idea what to do.
After seeing the movie, Twelve Angry Men, I don't think the jury system is all that fair. I agree with the thought that people think it's a hassle, and they do everything they can to get out of it. Therefore, if they don't even want to be there, serving as a member of the jury in the first place, then how on earth do you expect them to make a fair decision and not just make a quick, simple decision so they can go home and get on with their lives. The defendent deserves the time, energy and care of the jurors to debate and carefully consider their verdict. It's simply not fair to just blow it off and make a decision that impacts someone else's life/fate without taking it seriously and being fair.
However, at the same time, it's more comforting to know that there are twelve people deciding one's fate instead of just one. At least there would be a chance for deliberation before a verdict was reached, and it wasn't based on just one person's thoughts. At least with a jury they can combine all their thoughts and perhaps come to a conclusion that might not have been reached by just one person alone.
I agree with Chris... we should just take volunteers to serve as a jury because there are a select few that enjoy it and would, therefore, put the time and consideration into the verdict that is fair to the defendent.
If the courts only took volunteers, could they possibly have enough jurors for all of the cases? In addition, what kind of person would continually volunteer for jury duty? Wouldn't you have some concerns about his/her reasons for volunteering?
I agree with the idea that jury duty should be voluntary. However, I also understand that there probably wouldn't be enough people. So I think that maybe in trials we could look to those who have volunteered first, and if there's not enough begin to make more people come. However, if there are people willing to go or who don't have anything to do like retirees then why not take them first. But, eventually, someone would have to go that did not want to. And as much as we all hate it I don't think it's that bad. I just think the perception of jury duty needs to be changed. If you were a criminal would you want a group of people who didn't want to be there to decide your fate? At the end fo the day it's a necessary establishment that should be abided by and continued.
I think because of the diversity of all the people in America the jury system is good. There will always be different kinds of people with different views on the jury, so that most people get tried fairly.
However, most people do have their prejudices and that could go against you at some point. But there are reasonable and logical people that show up most of the time.
If you recruited people, probably no one would sign up because people have jobs and can not waste their time sitting on a jury.
I think the jury system is fair in most cases, but of course there are going to be times where the jury is partial to one side and feelings could get in the way of the truth.
I am very much for the idea of having juries set up in a manner that is voluntary for all members. However, I also believe that a "civil service examination" that is set to some standard by the court system should be administered to all jury members before they actually serve to ensure that they are well educated and understand fully the power and privilege that is held by jurors in the American court system. I came to this conclusion after watching 12 angry men because it would be impossible to have a "Henry Fonda" sitting in on every jury meeting to ensure that the person charged with a crime actually does have a fair trial.
I think I would almost prefer a judge to decide my fate rather than a jury. Since the majority people who are called for jury duty do not want to go, they might make a quick decision without reviewing the facts very closely in order to move on with the rest of their day. A judge knows more about our laws and I think he or she would be better at making a rational decision.
I do not think that the jury system is completely fair but i really see no other alternative. It is not fair to have only one person decide the verdict because that one person would have too much power and having a jury of voulenteers is just not realistic. There would never be enough people and it would be harder to elimate bias because there would not be many people to choose from. I think the jury system that we have no is the closest we will ever come to having a fair system. It helps provide variety in the jurors and it seems to me like the only realistic option.
sorry, forgot to do it thursday and went outta town after school.
As far as fairness goes or how the jury system should work... on one hand you could say that the odds of having a fair trial because you have somebody like Henry Fonda are low so therefor a jury is bad. But what if its a bench trial and the judge is one of the angry men who wants the kid to be killed?
Volunteers could be dangerous as it could drastically change the outcome of cases when the attorneys already know the belief backgrounds of the person. So, if its a pro gun law suit they can go rally up all the NRA members on the volunteer pool.
Every system is going to have its flaws and its shortcomings. It is hard for me to see a better alternative to this system.
Post a Comment