Prior to the mock jury trial we conducted in class, I really wasn’t interested in juries or the selection process. I found the jury selection process extremely interesting, because in some cases the attorney can predict the verdict based on the jurors that are selected. Gender, ethnicity, age and educational background have an effect on the juror’s behavior but it varies from case to case. The jurors’ ability to understand and comprehend the instructions and evidence being presented in trial had a direct effect on the verdict outcome. A confused jury is not a jury one would ideally wont.
Lippmann states that there are basically two types of people in this world, “insiders and outsiders.” Insiders according to Lippmann are those who know enough of a situation or problem that can provide a solution to the problem. Outsiders are the public that are spectators are do not know enough to give a solution to the problem, which is left to the executive insiders. Walter Lippmann makes a valid point by calling the public a reserve force. I also believe the majority of the public does not know enough to make the executive decisions. We have one role and one role only, to intervene when a crisis is at hand.
Working with a new group of people was scary at first but everything worked out accordingly. The sheriff explained to me that potential jurors are chosen from a jury pool generated by random selection of citizens' names from lists of registered voters, or combined lists of voters and people with driver’s licenses, in the judicial district. The potential jurors complete questionnaires to help determine whether they are qualified to serve on a jury. After reviewing the questionnaires, the court randomly selects individuals to be summoned to appear for jury duty. These selection methods help ensure that jurors represent a cross section of the community, without regard to race, gender, national origin, age or political affiliation.
What is a jury Trial A jury trial is when someone has been charged with criminal offenses but they also have that constitutional right to a trial by jury as well. The defendant also has the right to elect a bench trial and what this means is that the trial in which the judge decides the verdict so therefore the defendant can elect to have a jury tri.
Week 1 Individual Work Criminal Evidence Judith Ramos The country that I chose to write about is Aruba. I believe all countries have different approaches in determining the truth in criminal proceedings. In the U.S. the legal lsystem is det up with judges; lawyers; juries; and prosecutors. What the purpose of the trials in court is to bring justice to the victims involved in the crime. We have to make sure that all evidence is brought to court; all witnesses are present; have all the necessary documents needed to prove a guilty or innocent verdict.
Selection of a Jury Selection of a jury begins with the voir dire oath is administered. Following the oath counsel will question the possible jurors. Next there are counsel challenges for cause and for peremptory. Then the jury selection is completed for civil and most criminal trials there are six jurors plus two alternates; for certain offenses there are 12 jurors, and two alternates. For those chosen the juror's oath is administered.
Some issues put forward by the government may be too complicated for the people to understand, which means they may have difficulty deciding on their opinion due to lack of knowledge. Referendums may encourage giving power to the people, however, making important decisions should probably be left for the elected MP’s to conclude, simply for the fact that they are experts. Another advantage of using referendums is that they stop the government from making decisions which aren’t suited, or are unpopular with the public when an issue raised has had a large population vote ‘no’. If the government change a referendum’s verdict, then the public are less likely to conform to it which means the government have no choice in which to carry out their final decision. The second disadvantage of holding more referendums is that
Whether the defendant is white, black, red, or green, the color of the defendant’s skin should not be a factor when deciding a case. It goes against our criminal justice system, and it is completely unfair. With that said, questioning whether or not jury nullifications should be used anymore has become a controversial topic. There are equal numbers of both critics and supports for jury nullifications. Although, whenever there is racial-based jury nullifications configured by a jury, eye brows start to raise by both sides, and people start to question the integrity of the jury system.
However, DeLisi et al studied over 800 male inmates and found no correlation between gang membership and institutional violence. Nevertheless, this study lacks population validity as it cannot be generalised to other people due to only involving male inmates. There are also no ethical issues involved but it could possibly have an element of researcher bias in terms of interpreting the results in a way to correspond to the
California State and Local Government Direct democracy is a way for average people like you and I to take care of public issues rather than leaving it up to representatives. The main objection to direct democracy is that the general public is a poor position to judge the appropriate actions of government. The public as a whole is not as interested or informed as their elected representatives. Much of the public only has an apparent understanding of most political issues and is likely to be swayed one way or another. Direct Democracy has been practiced in Switzerland, United States and in the New England Town Meetings.