can someone summarize it?
2007-02-08 10:05:21 · 13 answers · asked by Christina G 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
They are an unbiased voice which keeps things honest and fair. No one can pin point what a jury will do or how they will vote. It's great!
2007-02-08 10:08:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Juries are based on the English system of having a "jury of peers" to decide a case. Originally, however, a person accused of a crime literally had a jury of their peers. Jury members were friends, family, or community members that knew the accused well.
A jury is part of a legal system to determine if a charge is reasonable and if it is, what an appropriate consequence should be.
I can tell you that juries aren't always fair. I used to assist attorneys in picking a jury. It really depends on each case and what a client was charged with, but generally we'd try to get the following people kicked out of the jury pool:
Anyone with a degree higher than a bachelors degree
No attorneys or anyone in the legal system (the jury would think they are "experts" and this person would have too much power in the deliberations
Doctors or nurses, especially if the case involved some type of injury
Newspaper reporters
Victims of crimes
Anyone who loves and respects police or has a family member or friend that is a police officer.
Prosecutors always try to kick off people of color, especially if the person charged with a crime is of color. Their tactic? They ask a potential juror if they distrust or had a bad experience with the police. Most people of color answer they cannot trust a police officer.
So really, it is no longer a jury of peers.
2007-02-08 10:17:25 · answer #2 · answered by Lisa S 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In England, the judge and jury used to be the local lord - he couldn't appreciate the situation of the surfs that he owned. The English parliament eventually created a fairer system of trials, where the legal aspects were taken care of by the judge, but the actual decision was rendered by a panel of fair-minded men, none of whom were lawyers. This is essentially the system we still have today. The lawyers look after the law, but a set of people who are your equal - not employed as a jury, not lawyers involved in the case (although some might be lawyers by profession) make the final judgement of guilty or not.
2007-02-08 10:16:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i have served, it was a capital murder case, and since then i have become a jailer and have worked closely with criminals before and after their case. serving in the jury made me very uncomfortable knowing i was responsible for this person's future but i knew that i had a service i owed to my community. the legal system lacks consistency, two people charged with the same crime with the same criminal history should receive the same sentence, but its not always the case. my advise to you is, listen and form your own conclusion and dont budge. other jurors will try and convince you differently if yall dont agree. a lot of people go into jury duty and think of it as a waste of time and it is these same people that complain about the legal system. remember, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
2016-05-23 22:42:01 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
So that you would be judged not just by a Judge (usually someone who makes more money and has a totally different lifestyle) but by a jury of your peers. This means other people like you who could consider what they would have done if they were in your situation.
2007-02-08 10:13:16 · answer #5 · answered by inkantra 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The US Constitution!
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
2007-02-08 10:19:41 · answer #6 · answered by cantcu 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The constitution says a defendant shall be judged by a jury of his peers.
2007-02-08 10:09:03 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
guaranteed by the US constitution, that the accused has a right to trial by a fair and unbiased jury of his peers. Sixth and Seventh Amendments.
2007-02-08 10:10:40 · answer #8 · answered by Jack Chedeville 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
to ensure everyone of a fair trial. it was customary in the olden days (and today still, in some places) to have a judge, loyal to the King, decide guilt and innocence by fiat. that was not a fair system and many innocent people languished in prisons because they didn't have the money to bribe the judge
2007-02-08 10:09:14 · answer #9 · answered by kapute2 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To make the trial seem more fair. you don't just have the judge judging you. You've got 12 other people helping make the decision
2007-02-08 10:08:36 · answer #10 · answered by sellatieeat 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋