Using This American Jury System Review To Understand This Complex Concept
Codified in the US Constitution, the judicial system in America has been called the best of a bad lot around the world. It brings normal people, people who may have never had any interactions with the law before, into the judicial system. An American Jury System Review would go into some of the good things and some of the bad things about it.
The way the judicial system is supposed to work could read like a popular novel. A defendant, charged with a crime, is brought before a judge. They have an attorney. The State has an attorney or prosecutor that attempts to prove the defendant is guilty. The persons lawyer attempts to show that the prosecutor has not proven that and that his client is, indeed, not guilty.
While both lawyers are talking and, possibly, double talking, the jury is sitting there trying to take it all in. It will be up to them, when all is said and done, to decide whether the defendant is guilty or not based on the facts they hear. A bad part about this system is that many do not seem to understand the facts or are having problems respecting the seriousness of their task.
A horrible trend, in many circles, is the belief that the jurors should be able to take the law and change it to reflect some political purpose. They may so identify with the defendant, or their predicament, that they declare, against better judgment, because of their race, their poverty or membership in some other victim class. This is not a good trend as the weights of justice are held by a lady who is blind to all of these conditions.
From time to time, people get a letter or postcard in the mail asking them to present themselves to the court house for jury duty. What that means is that they will be ushered into a fairly large room, along with a lot of other people. They may, at this time, be instructed to fill out a survey or questionnaire. This may be lengthy or not so much long as very inquisitive.
These forms are designed by the lawyers, both the prosecutor and defense attorney, to help them know how you might feel about what they are going to say and show to you. The court clerks, working in this room, every once in a while, will call several names and take these folks to a court room where a trial will be held. The questionnaires will have already been copied and given to all attorneys in the court.
A judge will ask you some general questions and one lawyer, from each side will ask some very pointed questions. These will be about your feelings concerning the crime and how you feel about the defendant. A brief discussion about race may take place, if appropriate to the occasion.
Several high profile cases, across the country, since 1996, have made a mockery of some of the high value everyone places in this system. This is because you are not supposed to have any preconceived thoughts about the person being tried. There is a growing number of activists who believe in jury nullification which means that no matter what is brought up, in the trial, they are going to decide based on some quota they support.
The way the judicial system is supposed to work could read like a popular novel. A defendant, charged with a crime, is brought before a judge. They have an attorney. The State has an attorney or prosecutor that attempts to prove the defendant is guilty. The persons lawyer attempts to show that the prosecutor has not proven that and that his client is, indeed, not guilty.
While both lawyers are talking and, possibly, double talking, the jury is sitting there trying to take it all in. It will be up to them, when all is said and done, to decide whether the defendant is guilty or not based on the facts they hear. A bad part about this system is that many do not seem to understand the facts or are having problems respecting the seriousness of their task.
A horrible trend, in many circles, is the belief that the jurors should be able to take the law and change it to reflect some political purpose. They may so identify with the defendant, or their predicament, that they declare, against better judgment, because of their race, their poverty or membership in some other victim class. This is not a good trend as the weights of justice are held by a lady who is blind to all of these conditions.
From time to time, people get a letter or postcard in the mail asking them to present themselves to the court house for jury duty. What that means is that they will be ushered into a fairly large room, along with a lot of other people. They may, at this time, be instructed to fill out a survey or questionnaire. This may be lengthy or not so much long as very inquisitive.
These forms are designed by the lawyers, both the prosecutor and defense attorney, to help them know how you might feel about what they are going to say and show to you. The court clerks, working in this room, every once in a while, will call several names and take these folks to a court room where a trial will be held. The questionnaires will have already been copied and given to all attorneys in the court.
A judge will ask you some general questions and one lawyer, from each side will ask some very pointed questions. These will be about your feelings concerning the crime and how you feel about the defendant. A brief discussion about race may take place, if appropriate to the occasion.
Several high profile cases, across the country, since 1996, have made a mockery of some of the high value everyone places in this system. This is because you are not supposed to have any preconceived thoughts about the person being tried. There is a growing number of activists who believe in jury nullification which means that no matter what is brought up, in the trial, they are going to decide based on some quota they support.
About the Author:
You can visit tunno.com for more helpful information about An American Jury System Review Would Point Out Bad And Good Points.