Reliable writers only please

Should the jury agree?

Running head: SHOULD THE JURY AGREE? 1

REVISION OF A PROBLEM EXISTS

The jury system is present in many countries around the world, arguably because no finer system has been developed such that defendants can receive a fair trial. This, however, does not necessarily mean that the jury system is without its problems. For instance the jury system has continually been characterized with mixed reactions from critics and supporters alike. Some people argue that the jury must be in complete agreement while others are against that idea. Judges declare mistrials when a unanimous agreement cannot be reached by a jury. In mistrial cases, the government has a choice: It can retry the case or abandon the prosecution entirely. To avoid bias decisions or unfair treatments by the government, courts considered a jury "the jewel and the centerpiece" in the justice system of America (Glasser 1997). The jurors were meant to stand between oppressive government and the accused individual. It is essential, however, to acknowledge that the jury system generally has numerous advantages, as well as disadvantages (Gaines & Miller, 2013). Stemming from this complication the rules that require all members of a jury to agree with conviction should be changed due to its grossly negative impacts in the judicial system.

It is not at all clear as to the true origin of the jury system. However, there are reports that trace its origin to England where it is stated to have existed prior to 1066. Studies indicate that William the Conqueror of England attributed the virtues similar to that of a jury system, which is documented to have been originally borrowed from Normandy. Since its establishment in the United States, however, the jury has gradually undergone significant evolution. Although the jury system was adopted from Mother England, its rules and modalities have changed drastically over the years it has been used in the United States (Origins and History of a Jury - State of Vermont Judiciary). As for the original system in the Department of Justice, its viability and effectiveness are viewed to be outdated and thus many critics argue it should be changed.

The jury, therefore, has been associated with numerous problems, the majority of which account for the flaws and weaknesses of our jury system. The most prominent problems to be discussed in this context include jury nobbling, compromised verdict process, and finally, the jury system and how its negatively influence. These problems can be further elaborated in the following context:

Jury nobbling is a form of attempted influence on one or more jurors, and is believed to be highly frequent, and thus it result to wrongful acquittals. It should be noted that there is no inquiry allowed into the deliberations of the jury after the verdict is given. This is never possible even when juror alleges racial or any other wrongdoing or bias by the jury. Jurors are humans and thus, make mistakes. In some instances, the jurors deliver a hasty verdict, which is only suited to their desires (Gaines & Miller, 2013). This instance is very common in lengthier trials. With these considerations in mind it is clear that such flaws in the current jury system, namely requiring all member of the jury to agree for a conviction, compromises the justice system entirely.

Compromise Verdict Process

While jury nobbling has led to improper acquittals, a compromised verdict process has resulted in many juries being accused of returning the wrong verdict in numerous court cases in the United States. Due to this, there have been a series of miscarriages of justice’s occurrences, which entirely undermine public confidence in the justice system. For example, jurors may be easily tempted to reach a rather quick verdict as they have little or no incentives to care about the trails outcome. The law on the secrecy of the jury allows the innocent individual to remain convicted instead of making reasonable inquiries into the way in which the verdict was obtained (Holland, 2006). Such issues associated with the jury are viewed as to have an adverse effect on the continued viability of the current criminal justice system that utilizes the verdict based on the decision of the jury trial system.

The Jury is prone to negative influences

The jury is often influenced by the judge or impressive barristers. Also, the juries are never required to give a reason for a verdict, and thus, it becomes a huge problem in the justice system. The fact that the jury is so easily influenced makes it a weaker force in the decision making in delivering a verdict in court cases. On some occasions, the jurors may be influenced by presentation, as well as showmanship over substance, and therefore, they may not likely have a complete understanding of each and every point of law that is raised in a given court case (Gaines, 2014).

Conclusion

In summation, stemming from the numerous complications inherent in the jury system the rules that require all members of a jury to agree for conviction should be changed. The three problems associated with the jury system are critical, and thus, this system should be removed from the criminal justice system. As discussed in this context, jury nobbling is believed to be highly frequent, and thus, it in wrongful acquittals. Also, there’s been a series of miscarriages of justices, which entirely undermine confidence in the justice system. Lastly, it is evident that the jury is easily influenced makes it a weaker force in the decision making in delivering a verdict in court cases. And we can show that there is a better solution for some of the injustices in the court system.

Solution to the problem and advantages

The jury system is may experience major negative characteristics, which mainly undermine the decision-making and judgment of court cases. The jury system is a largely contested system of justice department that requires all modalities involved running together for efficiency. It is essential to acknowledge that the contributions of one or a few jurors are usually taken into consideration with the seriousness of the highness magnitude. It is such negative influences make the jury system weak in decision making and giving verdicts in different cases (Grimm, 2009). Some of these influences are commonly from the impressive barristers or judges. On another occasion, such influences might be from persons related or close to the accused or the accuser, where the juror may be biased by such individuals to give a verdict in their favor (Mosteller, 2012). The various problems with the jury can be resolved through an informed analysis of the causes of such issues for final remedies to be proposed, as well as their advantages.

Solution to the problem of Jury Tampering

The problem of jury tampering mainly entails a form of attempts to influence either one or more jurors, which can cause wrongful acquittals. It is essential to acknowledge that the contributions of one or a few jurors are usually taken into consideration with the seriousness magnitude of each trail. Therefore, the practice of jury tampering is made possible with the provision that one or just a few jurors may highly influence the outcome of a court case (Mosteller, 2012). The main characteristics of jury tampering mainly entail intimidation of the jurors to rule the case for the person who influences the member of the jury. As a solution to the problem, jurors or members of a jury usually are placed in a special room to deliberate, or in a chamber that is out of view of the public (Ferguson, 2013). In the case of a high profile case jurors are sequestered isolating them all outside influence and public opinion.

Solution to compromised verdict process

The jury system is often accusing of returning the wrong verdict in various court cases. To consider a viable solution to the issue of a compromised verdict, it essential to consider the possible causes of such problem. One of the most notable causes highlighted as a cause of the jury giving a wrong is some psychological and legal implications. Some problems in cases are a result of the amount of pressure that jurors may be exposed to, especially when an outcome is expected to be reached sooner than later. In other occasions, the traditional image of the deliberations of the jury is from the team of twelve jurors, where a single determined holdout eventually convinces the other jurors through typically long and contentious deliberations (Mosteller, 2012). However, in reality, jurors who are tired and may be under social and time pressure are likely to lose willpower and give in. Issues that are related to stress among jurors during court sessions should be discouraged to increase a quality of decisions made by the jury. It should be noted that stress in general, can profoundly impede the quality of decision-making environment and somewhat encourage jurors to give in to the majority's social pressure (Ferguson, 2013). As a way to solve such issues, jurors should be given more time to make concise decisions about a particular case. More importantly, any undesirable psychological implications that may prevent the jury from reaching the right outcome, probably for the wrong reasons should be identified and factored (Grimm, 2009).

Solution to negative influences in the jury

Jurors are faced with the problem of being easily influenced by the judges. Such negative influences make the jury system weak in decision making and giving verdicts for different cases. The solution to this problem is mainly aimed at strengthening the jury and making it a compelling and original force in the decision-making processes, as well as delivering a verdict in court cases. On numerous occasions, some judges have been reported to have influenced the decision of a juror (Grimm, 2009). In other incidences, the judge may create division among jurors and eventually influences more jurors for a final decision of a given case. This forms as a kind of intimidation of some jurors by the judge to conform to the selfish verdicts desired by the impressive barristers or judges (Ferguson, 2013). To prevent such scenarios, the jurors should have special guidelines of conduct for judges, since it is sometime an environment that would make it easier for a magistrate to negative influence the decision of the jurors or the jury in general.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the proposed solutions in this context can be useful in restoring the dignity that the jury system once had in the past. It is the duty of the justice department to ensure that the public is convinced of the positive changes in the jury system. After the application of the various solutions, all the weaknesses associated with jury are likely to be addressed. It is through these solutions that the confidence of the public regarding the jury system can be ultimately restored.

References

Ferguson, A. G. (2013). Why jury duty matters: A citizen's guide to constitutional action. New York: New York University Press. Retrieved from http://nyupress.org/books/9780814729038/

Gaines, L. K., & Miller, R. L. (2013). Criminal Justice in Action: The Core. Cengage Learning.

Gaines, L. K., Miller, R. L. R., Hopkins, D. R., Stratton, N., & Neithercutt, M. (2014).Criminal justice in action: The core. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Grimm, P. W., Fax, C. S., & Sandler, P. M. (2009). Discovery problems and their solutions. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association, Section of Litigation.

Holland, R. (2006). Improving criminal jury verdicts: Learning from the court- martial. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 101-145.

Mosteller, F. (1965). Fifty Challenging Problems in Probability with Solutions. Biometrics, 21(2), 512.