I am doing a term paper for my ethical class. I think all replies will be very interesting.
2007-04-24 13:40:23 · 11 answers · asked by Lola73 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
yes, it really is.
If you don't believe it, propose something better since someone has to decide.
2007-04-24 13:42:49 · answer #1 · answered by WJ 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The right to a trial by jury is guaranteed in the constitution. While it is admittedly a flawed process, I believe on the whole it is a better process than any alternative. I served on one jury and was totally impressed with how it went, and how much care the jury went to be sure they were making the right decision. While jury panels can be biased or corrupted or act wrongly so too can individual judges, and it's harder to make the wrong thing happen 12 times over. Now if you are saying a jury composed of judges or lawyers, well a lot of times that would be better, but such a limited group may also miss a lot of things by not sharing in the kind of life experiences that a defendant might have. For example, a lot of times minorities say they run from the police because of general fear of them, not because of being guilty. Well, someone who is a minority from a poor background might find that a very believable assertion, while someone raised in a middle class or better environment all their lives might not be able to understand that it COULD be a motivation.
2016-05-18 00:05:10 · answer #2 · answered by kym 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As a society, we are more than within ethical limits to seek the righting of wrongs done by an individual against another individual or society as a whole. Determination of guilt by a jury of one's peers is so far the least biased method of doing so that has been established.
2007-04-24 13:44:55 · answer #3 · answered by azrael505 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As long as the jury refuses to convict anybody unless there is no doubt of their guilt. It is unethical for somebody on a jury to convict somebody unless they are 100% certain that the person they are convicting is guilty. It is also unethical for a jury to aid and abet the government when the government is aggressing against one of its citizens (such as a case against drug users or tax evaders, because people have a right to use drugs if they want to and taxation is theft).
If a jury sends somebody to jail who violates an unjust law or a jury sends somebody who is innocent to jail, that jury is just as guilty as the prosecution that wrongly convicted the person. Anybody who makes a false statement against somebody or intentionally aids and abets a false statement (such as the stripper in the Duke Lacrosse case) should face the same penalty they attempted to impose on their victim.
2007-04-24 13:49:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, juries actualy have a better record of getting the case right than a panel of judges. Anyone who is brought up on charges, and chooses a panel of judges over a jury, is asking for jail time. Its not a perfect system, but it works well.
2007-04-24 13:44:49 · answer #5 · answered by Army Retired Guy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes it is very ethical. Twelve people who know nothing about law watching over people that have studied and can manipulate law. Life and feeling control one part of judgment and politics and social standing control the other.
Brilliant idea
2007-04-24 13:49:18 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Society has rules and these rules must be adhered too less we regress into total anarchy. The classic definition of civilization is ...Organized motive. Humanity must follow these rules and be judged by their peers according to reasonable laws agreed on by the majority. Without a "code" and the support of the same society falters and civilization fails.
2007-04-24 13:48:14 · answer #7 · answered by Don W 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, what would be the alternatives?
Leaving it in the hands of one government employee, the Judge? That caused recognizeable problems in the 1700's that caused in part our separation from England.
Not judge criminals at all? It would take an idiot to prefer that to.... well, anything.
Jury duty is a DUTY of citizens to participate in the criminal justice system that is intended to protect them from criminals. It's unethical to expect that system to work while totally unwilling to take part in it. Common, but totally unethical.
2007-04-24 13:46:32 · answer #8 · answered by open4one 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes it is... that's why it's called a jury of your peers.. they are your equals... rather than it being just one judge.. 12 people all have to agree... much better than just one person
2007-04-24 13:44:22 · answer #9 · answered by katjha2005 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is ethical.
2007-04-24 13:43:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋