Abe Haskins Jury Nullification Paper CJA/344 Cultural Diversity in Criminal Justice June 25, 201208 Jury Nullification Jury nullification was first practiced in 1735, and since then, it has become an important element to our criminal justice system. According to Legal-dictionary, “Jury nullification is a jury’s decision to acquit a defendant despite explicitly violating the law because the jury felt that the law was unjust or not applicable to the case.” Whenever there is a jury nullification, unfortunately race and ethnicity are equated in the decision as well as all the other elements that categorize a guilty or not guilty verdict. Racial-based jury notifications have become a problem for our criminal justice system. A jury is used in a trial case to give fair treatment to the defendant whether he or she is guilty or innocent of the alleged crime. 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.
Whether or not this man was punished and remained in jail was up to the prosecution. Heffernan’s critical decision would be whether or not to remove his thoughts on morality from his professional decision. The defendant had a legal right to a jury trial and a moral right to have it vindicated. Since the judge had refused to instruct the jury concerning the justifiable use of deadly force, the defendant had been denied that right. Heffernan was faced with whether
Although juries are intended to be fair and balanced, and are in theory supposed to prevent biased, incompetent people having that kind power. However often enough it's the opposite that happens. In criminal cases where the defendant's punishment could be serving time in prison or could even be death, there is a great deal of pressure on jurors to ultimately make the right decision. This kind of pressure combined with the fear of possible guilt can be overwhelming for jurors, making them incapable of doing their job properly. For example, imagine that you’re in a jury room, and all of the other jurors have voted on the defendant being guilty and you are the one to decide whether or not this person gets the death sentence or if they walk free.
Reason for the Exclusionary Rule The exclusionary rule was created to protect innocent people from being harassed from law enforcement. The exclusionary rule is judge made law and has been around since the beginning of the 1900’s. The Supreme Court ruled that illegal searches conducted by law enforcement officials should not be allowed in court because it was a breach of a person’s fourth amendment. This rule prevents officers from misconduct. Cost and Benefits When determining the cost/benefit analysis to the exclusionary rule, one must take into consideration the outcome.
The jury returned with a verdict of guilty but the defendant’s conviction was quashed on appeal because of the judge’s interference. Modern Day Use of Juries Only a small percentage of cases are tried by Jury today. Juries are used in the following courts: Court | Type of Case | Role | Number of Jury | Crown Court | Serious Criminal Cases: e.g. murder, manslaughter, rape | Decide the verdict - Guilty or Not Guilty | 12 | High Court | Defamation, False Imprisonment, Malicious prosecution and any case alleging fraud | Decide Liability. If fined for the claimant also decide amount of damages.
Although the Japanese system was influenced by the Anglo-American model of jury trial, it differed in important particulars. The jury did not return a general verdict, but instead responded to judicial questions by returning special verdicts finding particular facts. Moreover, these verdicts , which could be returned by a majority of the jurors, were not binding. If the judge did not like the facts found he could empanel successive juries to hear the case de voo until one found those facts that would allow the judge to hold as he thought best on the question of guilt or innocence. The American jury is a sudden controversial resurgence of laymen participation in the Japanese judiciary represents a stark contrast to the American experience.
He aggressively protested that they had no right to make a law which needed a license but at the end, Andrew Jackson stepped in and ruled that the Cherokee were a “distinct community” as America had the upper hand in the ruling. The Supreme Court Case made its final call which I think was correct because I think that Samuel Worcester was just trying to test the boundaries of the laws that the Americans made. On his part though, I think he and the other six missionaries were just being un-smart and it seemed to me that they did not know what they were dealing with. It seemed like Worcester was trying to be a smart-alec because he could have easily have
Definitely, knowledge offers different perspectives and the possibility to stand for what you believe to be right. Furthermore, if there were no laws established by the government, there would be chaos and uncertainty. But that doesn’t mean that people have to be submissive and accept everything without having a say in it. Now as we saw in the past, there have been some laws that have been established by elected officials, for example segregation back in the days in American history. It was considered to be breaking the law to protest against it, but if there were no people that protested against this unjust law, the oppression would’ve still continued.
The writer also demonstrates positional argumentation throughout the article, always pointing to the ‘conservative’ point of view. Much of what the author assumes will ﬁx the correctional system is speculational argumentation. It cannot become fact until it has actually been tried and there is a factual outcome to report of. ! When the writer uses the example of Texas refusing to build eight more prisons Tamra and the crime rate decline as a result, he used factual information to imply that if it worked in one place, it may work in all correctional systems.
April 4, 2012 The abolishment of the Double Jeopardy Rule In The United States The Double Jeopardy Rule is one of the most controversial topics today. The U.S. Court system can overturn convictions due to evidence that proves innocence but yet there is a law banning a retrial to prove someone guilty. Therefore The Double Jeopardy Rule should be abolished to create equality in the Court systems, to provide justice to the victims of the crime, and to allow the guilty to be fairly punished. One of the most historic cases in the American Judicial System is the O.J. Simpson case.