Jury System and Its Effect on the Trials in the United States

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Since the inception of jury systems in United States, many Americans feel that it is the cornerstone of the nations justice system since it guarantees citizens fair impartial judgment. However the perception has changed with many feeling that it has tarnished in favor of others in delivering verdicts in both criminal and civil cases. It is evident that the jury system has affected the way trials are made in the United States either positively or negatively. Many people hold different opinions on the effectiveness of US jury systems with calls from all directions for reforms or abolishment. The effects of US jury system can be felt by all the stakeholders in the judicial system on the way trials are conducted by the jury which raises eyebrows leading to their calls for reforms or complete elimination.

The US jury system has affected the way trials are conducted in the US through abolishment of harsher sentencing to the criminals. In many cases, the jury has failed to administer punishments to the defendants arguing that they are not guilty due to insufficient evidence gathered by the jury. The jury is shirking their responsibility in making moral judgment making their conducts questionable in the judicial systems. Over the years before the introduction of jury systems, most of the trials related to civil offences used to be tried by judges and the offenders could be charged, this is in contrary to the jury system where many crimes offenders go unpunished and are set free because they are proved innocent by the jury.

With the introduction of jury systems, cases before them have been getting too complex each time they carry out a trial especially with civil suits. Complications of trials are caused by the inability of the jury systems to understand the scientific evidence produced which forces them to seek for experts and professionals in analyzing the evidences before giving their rulings. The complexity of cases arising from inability to analyze evidence by the jury has affected the way trials are conducted in the United States by prolonging the stipulated time (McAlinn, Rosen & Stern, 2010, p.186). Many juries ignore information which they tend not to understand well mostly concerned with the evidence and this has lead to more complications of cases resulting to delay of justice which compromises the judicial systems.

Advantages of American jury system

Fair hearing

American jury system provides more sympathetic hearing on individuals cases who are not part of the state since it involve peers. Trials of people who are not part of the government have been unfair since it is characterized by favourism. American jury system conducts fair trial among its peers which eliminates biasness in making verdict. The large number of people involved in the jury ensures proper consensus is reached in delivering judgment which guarantees fairness and sympathetic hearing. American jury system plays important role in checking against states powers. It checks the state from misusing its powers through sentencing of individuals without fair trials and any other actions which is not permitted by the law. American jury system considers cases emanating from the states office related to abuse of powers and correcting cases where abuse of powers is witnessed (Kobor, 2008, p. 40).

Interjecting societal values and Norms

Interjecting individuals norms and values legitimizes the law by providing opportunity to the offenders and ruling in accordance with the societal values. Jurist represents the public hence they judge in line with the generally accepted values and norms of the society. For instance, it takes into consideration all the factors related to individuals societal values and norms which are incorporated in delivering of justice (McAlinn, Rosen & Stern, 2010). Observation of societal values ensures that judgment passed is in accordance to societal norms which gives individuals fair trial and minimizes biasness on giving verdict. Values and norms in the society are meant to shape the individuals conduct and interaction, interjecting them by the jury is important in administering justice since they are accepted by the society (Kobor 2008, p.48).

Education of Citizens

American Jury system educates the citizens about self governance. Institutions of jury not only improve the law but help the citizens improve their understandings and the application of the law. It educates the citizens and the offenders about the legal process and helps them understand their responsibilities as citizens. American jury system hears the cases emanating from the public which gives them opportunity in educating the citizens on the application of the law and how they can be responsible citizens. The jury system is not quick in delivering verdicts but it takes time in getting statements from all the concerned parties as the jurists tries to inform the citizens about the responsible living and the need to live in accordance with the societal values and norms which governs their conducts.

Minimal Corruption

Corruption in the judicial system has been minimized through the establishment of the jury systems. Chances of corruption are limited due to the large number of jurist who sits on a case and it is difficult to corrupt them one by one to be in your favor compared to a single judge who handles a case (McAlinn, Rosen & Stern, 2010, pp.275-276). Over the past years, cases of corruption have been reported in the judiciary since cases have been handled by single judge making it easy to corrupt them in ones favor. Cases falling under the Americans jury are freely tried without cases of corruption being reported because of the high number of jurist who have to deliberate on a case and pass their verdict without getting corrupted.

Disadvantages of American jury system

Emotions and Circumstance influence

Jurys decisions are likely to be influenced by the emotions and circumstances in cases which seem to be too emotional. For instance, a jury may convict an individual accused of rape case following the jurors personal feelings rather than proceeding with the case. Different people have different feelings about certain issues hence this may influence the jurists decisions depending on the personal feelings. Sympathetic jurors may free the accused if the emotions are too high which will interfere with the justice. American jurist system decisions are affected by different emotions the jurist hold which directly impact the way they deliver their verdicts Segal, Spaeth & Benesh 2005, p.134).

Prejudice

A jury trial is not fair to the defendants if prejudice becomes the issue with local biasness influencing most of the outcomes of the trials. Jurors have been disregarding the facts presented by the judges and defense lawyers and acts in a prejudice manner in deciding the cases which have continuously compromised the judicial system in the delivery of justice to the people. Stereotyping and racial profiling have contributed to failures of justice in many cases. In a panel of jurist from different ethnic and religious backgrounds, cases of prejudice are rampant since they are likely to make rulings in favor of individuals of their ethnic or religious background (Kobor 2008, p.98).

Inexperienced jurors

Most jurors have no training about the law which they apply since the only legal requirement for juror is to understand the fact against the cases being tried. Many jurors encounter problems that are beyond their experience and training in dealing with everyday cases which compromises the delivery of justice. Lack of legal knowledge allows the prosecutors to convince the jurors and believe their assertions. Most jurors lack the capacity to analyze the scientific evidence which makes it difficult to verify the reliability of the evidence presented to them especially jurors in civil trials where financial matters are involved. Lack of qualified personnel in the American jury system is a problem in the delivery of justice since many cases are left due to inefficiency of the jurists.

Majority rule

American jury system does not allow for every member of the jury to give his or her verdict but instead rely on the majority rule which may be misleading. In a standard jury trial, the prosecution must convince all the 12 members serving in the jury on the defendants guilt which is a simple process if the evidences are available. Many jurors are forced to go with the majority rule even if they are not completely convinced about the evidences produced. Jurors who dont want to serve in the trial may do anything to ensure that the trial end by forming the majority rule which results to unjust verdicts (Dickinson, 2003, p.155).

Secretive

Jury system is very secretive in delivering verdicts which prevents their transparency during trials. They do not often give reasons to for their verdicts which bring unfairness in depriving life, property or liberty without informing the convict how the decision was reached and made. Being secretive may not be meant to give it its impartiality and protect it from the public attention and pressure but instead gives room to more questions how the verdicts are reached.

Conclusion

American jury systems have been celebrated over the years since its introduction in the legal system. It has faced different public opinions on its efficiency in handling the civil cases since its introduction with various proponents arguing on the way forward. Since its inception, it has affected the way trials are determined in the United States. More civil cases can now be handled and judgments can be made in accordance to the societal norms and values unlike with the judges who follow the law to the latter. The introduction of jury system have minimized the harsh punishments rendered to the convicts by being lenient in passing judgments which have been echoed by the business class in the united states. Chances of corruptions have been minimized by the jury system following the high number of people involved in determining the case which pose a challenge to unethical practices in comparison to a case being handled by one individual.

Although the American jury system is celebrated by many citizens, it has myriad shortcomings. For instance, most of the rulings by jurists are based on their emotional feelings about the case at hand which has always affected the delivery of justice. The procedure used in selecting the jurist can not select the experienced or jurist with law background and this has pose challenge in determining cases since the jurist lacks proper knowledge on how to apply the law. Prejudice and majority rule has allowed biasness in delivery of justice since there are cases of stereotypes that have been reported. For instance, jurists are in favor of people from their racial and ethnic backgrounds.

Reference list

Dickinson, J. 2003. Administrative Justice and Supremacy of law in the United States. New Jersey: Harvard university press.

Kobor, S. 2008. Bargaining in the Criminal Justice Systems of the United States and Germany Framkfurt: Deutshe National bibliothek.

McAlinn, P.G, Rosen, D. & Stern, P.J. 2010. An Introduction to American Law (2^nd ed.), Durham: Carolina Academic Press.

Segal, J, Spaeth, H & Benesh, S. 2005. The supreme court in the American Legal System. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Click Here To Order Now!