In theory, the accused is supposed to have a jury of his PEERS. But that is not what occurs.
2007-05-02 13:07:22
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
In the jury system (which is not implemented perfectly by any means), the citizens act as a check on government power.
First, the jury judges the facts of the case, so that the government has to prove the guilt of the accused before punishment.
Second, the jury can also judge the law as well as the facts of the case. In case the jury members believe that the law is unjust, they can find the defendant not guilty despite having violated the law. This is called "jury nullification". See http:www.fija.org for information.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo/
2007-05-02 16:03:00
·
answer #2
·
answered by clore333 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
That is a very good question and I wish I could give you an honest answer. After the way the Jury voted in the O.J.Sompson case, I lost all faith in our Jury System.
2007-05-02 13:07:56
·
answer #3
·
answered by Alfie333 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
The Jury system solidifies the participation of the people in the administration of justice rather than placing it in the hands of a few people.
2007-05-02 15:24:59
·
answer #4
·
answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Our country recognizes the importance of citizen participation in government. We cherish the individual's contribution to the whole.
We take too many of our freedoms for granted. (Travel abroad and see how many people don't have the choices we do.)
There are 3 primary ways ordinary citizens can serve their country/community: military service; voting; jury duty.
2007-05-02 18:45:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by Darla N 4
·
0⤊
0⤋