Jury system essay
Jury system advantages and disadvantages
Was it on such a charter that they intended to rely, for all future time, for the security of their liberties? Earls and Barons shall not be amerced but by their peers, and according to the degree of their crime. But another answer to the argument that the people are arrayed against themselves, when a jury hold an enactment of the government invalid, is, that the government, and all the departments of the government, are merely the servants and agents of the people; not invested with arbitrary or absolute authority to bind the people, but required to submit all their enactments to the judgment of a tribunal more fairly representing the whole people, before they carry them into execution, by punishing any individual for transgressing them. We also have sufficient evidence of the nature of the oath administered to jurors in criminal cases. This essay will provide a brief history of this evolution and evaluation of some advantages and disadvantages of a modern jury system. And as unanimity is required for a conviction, it follows that no one can be convicted, except for the violation of such laws as substantially the whole country wish to have maintained. It has all the powers that it chooses to exercise. There would be no sense in saying that the king might proceed against a man by force or arms, by the law of the land; but there is sense in saying that he may proceed against him, by force or arms, according to the law of the land; because the king would then be acting only as an executive officer, carrying the law of the land into execution. There is no disputing the decision since this will be a recipe for doubts on the credibility of the thought process all along hence making the justice system to be devoid of any kind of public trust. The fact that the jury were to fix the sentence, implies that they were to try the accused; otherwise they could not know what sentence, or whether any sentence, ought to be inflicted upon him. They can, for example, prohibit all discussion of the rightfulness of their authority; forbid the use of the suffrage; prevent the election of any successors; disarm, plunder, imprison, and even kill all who refuse submission. It is of no avail to say, in answer to this view of the case, that in surrendering their liberties into the hands of the government, the people took an oath from the government, that it would exercise its power within certain constitutional limits; for when did oaths ever restrain a government that was otherwise unrestrained? If any additional proof were wanted that juries were to fix the sentence, it would be found in the following provisions of Magna Carta, viz.
Who ever heard that succeeding legislatures were, on the whole, more honest than those that preceded them? These were the only modes of trial, except by jury, that had been known in England, in criminal cases, for some centuries previous to Magna Carta.
Juries in civil cases uk
However, we never hear of an initial appearance before the grand jury indictment. Some cases are emotional cases and jury may be tempted to bring a guilty verdict based on personal feelings rather than a verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. One will be colored into the ballot box, and the other into the name of another executive box. Previously it was expected that there must be a unanimous verdict of guilty or not guilty. The jury are also to judge whether the laws are rightly expounded to them by the court. To this day, it is impossible to determine if jurors present an unbiased trial for defendants regardless of their racial background. Like many other slaves they may have sufficient courage and strength to keep their masters somewhat in check; but they are nevertheless known to the law only as slaves. The question here arises, Whether the barons and people intended that those peers the jury should be mere puppets in the hands of the king, exercising no opinion of their own as to the intrinsic merits of the accusations they should try, or the justice of the laws they should be called on to enforce? Unless they judge on this point, the people are liable to have their liberties taken from them by brute force, without any law at all. If it do not authorize an individual to resist the first and least act of injustice or tyranny, on the part of the government, it does not authorize him to resist the last and the greatest. Discussions, which do not interfere with the enforcement of their laws, are but idle wind to them. For more than six hundred years—that is, since Magna Carta, in —there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws. Jury will provide a sympathetic hearing a fairer one something that is key in making sure that they feel the impact that the matter at hand is having on both parties and as a result be able to offer a valid and acceptable judgment.
And if the relatives of the criminal protected him, it was lawful to take vengeance on them also. But for this right of resistance, on the part of the people, all governments would become tyrannical to a degree of which few people are aware. The trial by jury, be it observed, was the only real barrier interposed by them against absolute despotism.
Also, we talk about its relevance in India and Indian judiciary. Even Magna Carta itself makes no provisions whatever for any parliaments, except when the king should want means to carry on war, or to meet some other extraordinary necessity.
The jury must also judge of the laws of evidence. Thus, modern juries are the hybrids of various systems. And here it is all-important to notice, that, practically speaking, there can be no legal right to resist the oppressions of the government, unless there be some legal tribunal, other than the government, and wholly independent of, and above, the government, to judge between the government and those who resist its oppressions; in other words, to judge what laws of the government are to be Edition: current; Page:  obeyed, and what may be resisted and held for nought.
Juries are used in indictable offences in criminal trials.
History of the jury system
The people are no more arrayed against themselves, when a jury puts its veto upon a statute, which the other tribunals have sanctioned, than they are when the Edition: current; Page:  same veto is exercised by the representatives, the senate, the executive, or the judges. The purpose of the Criminal Justice System is to deliver justice for all, by convicting and punishing the guilty and helping them stop the offending, while protecting the innocent. In short, if the jury have no right to judge of the justice of a law of the government, they plainly can do nothing to protect the people against the oppressions of the government; for there are no oppressions which the government may not authorize by law. An Act has never been passed by parliament to abolish the jury system. In England, under King Alfred A. What is there in the nature of men or things to make them so? This also is likely to have been a principle of the common law, inasmuch as, in that rude age, when the means of getting employment as laborers were not what they are Edition: current; Page:  now, the man and his family would probably have been liable to starvation, if these means of subsistence had been taken from him.
They can neither be removed from their office, nor called to account while in their office, nor punished after they leave their office, be their tyranny what it may.
The king could pass laws at any time when it pleased him.
based on 119 review