Jury Selection
This is an excerpt from the paper...
The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights guarantees all U.S. citizens the “right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state or district wherein the crime shall have been committed,” (Amendments 2003, 1). A jury trial in most cases is also guaranteed by State constitutions. The concept of a jury trial has been in existence more than three hundred years. Rationale for a jury trial includes preventing abuse, allowing the community a direct application of public policy, and enabling the common man to nullify poorly considered law. Juries typically are comprised of 12 members with two alternates, and the unanimity requirement helps reduce the likelihood of runaway juries. After receiving a summons, jurors are typically questioned by counsel and/or a judge in a process known as “voir dire.” The process of selecting jurors who will be impartial, Brash (2002) argues the purpose of “voir dire should be to determine whether a basis for challenge exists against any court member,” (27). While there are pros and cons of using a jury of common men and women, the dangers of replacing such a jury with a board of judges far outweigh the cons.Many individuals argue for replacing the current jury system with a jury made up of a board or panel of judges. These individuals argue that conventional juries are a waste of time and money, are incapable of handling sophisticated and complex issues, and are driven more by emotion than fact. Indeed,
. . .
p-by-step,” (Olson 2003, 24). Therefore, many are opposed to conventional juries because of the ability of counsel to manipulate jurors and shape a favorable jury that is not impartial.
Many argue against conventional juries based on the inability of most people to handle complex, highly technical, or otherwise complicated cases. Many felt that the favorable verdict in the O.J. Simpson case was based on emotion more than fact, particularly emotion over the displayed “racism” of LAPD Detective Mark Fuhrman and general confusion over complicated DNA testing processes. Therefore, those who are opposed to conventional juries argue they are inefficient, much costlier, seldom impartial, and lack the skills required to effectively decide complicated or technical issues and/or cases. The high cost of jury trials is one of the reasons for the increased number of plea bargains and settlements within the justice system.
While conventional juries have their cons, they also exhibit a number of pros. Conventional juries keep average citizens involved in the justice process, enabling them to have an impact on deciding important matters. Conventional juries also offer a checks-and-balance system against ill-considered laws that they might
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Bill Rights, Mark Fuhrman, Judge Spada, Constitution American, Superior Court, conventional juries, Viewed Dec, Voir Dire, Wollan Sep, Olson Jan, OJ Simpson, voir dire, jury trial, board judges, olson 2003, voir dire process, wollan 1997, dire process, individuals argue, prospective jurors, impartial jury, board judges outweigh, opposed conventional juries, olson 2003 24, argue conventional juries,
Approximate Word count = 1225
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Jury Selection
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
