In many circumstances a jury may dismiss the testimony and evidence and inject their own personal opinions regarding the law. This is known as jury nullification. Jury nullification permits juries to acquit even when the facts of the case suggest they convict, and thus enables citizens to play a more active role in determining justice and what or whom should be punished (McNamara & Burns, 2009, p. 265). Influence of Ethnicity within the Courtroom An individual’s race or ethnicity can have a substantial influence on courtroom proceedings and judicial practices. Many people, regardless of their own race, have preconceived notions of individuals that are charged with a criminal offense.
The purpose of the book is to advise the American public on the ongoing struggle with the outwitting Judiciary. Sutherland is also writing to inform Americans regarding what he feels is the abuse of powers of the Supreme Court judiciaries and what can be done to stop it. He also exposes the corrupt nature of judges sitting on the Supreme Court as well Supreme Court nominees. This problem is one that can be seen in multiple levels of government. According to Sutherland, some “members of the Senate “seek to influence and control the decisions of courts by preventing judges who are faithful to the
The jury will sympathize with the defendant, because they believe that they were treated or charged because of race. Jury Nullification has become very controversial because a number of well-known African American scholars encouraged Black jurors to acquit Black defendants Ethnicity not only influences courtroom proceedings and judicial practices, but also practices prior to and following. Because racism still exists within the world, it will continue to overlap within the criminal justice system. According to McNamara and Burns (2009), research suggests that a higher percentage of Hispanics and African Americans were more likely than White to face criminal charges There are various arguments for and against ethnicity- based jury nullification. The pros of race-based jury nullification include: guilty offenders are kept incarcerated, fair trials are warranted, and last but not least there is one
But in contrast there are very different at the same time. The crime control model is used in the criminal justice system for the prevention of crime. The crime control does not exclude that is possible to make a mistake, but based on the circumstances of the laws, the person is considered guilty until her or she is proven innocent. This model is based on old fashion laws which allow rapid and speedy convictions despite the mitigating factors of the case and the victim. The results, of the crime control model are wrongful convictions, being over-turned and this is a major downfall in the criminal justice system.
With the defendant they get a shot at leniency from the judge. Then there are some that say plea bargaining is unconstitutional. “Plea bargaining rests on the constitutional fiction that our government does not retaliate against individuals who wish to exercise their right to trial by jury.” (Lynch, The Case Against Plea Bargaining, 2003). essentially this means if the defendant believes in their innocence and want to go to trial the will be punished for standing up for their constitutional rights. It is my belief that plea bargaining is an utter necessity, and though it may not seem just at all times; we as a society can see how hectic the court would be if all cases were brought to trial.
Jury nullification is the right of any jury during a trial to decide the guilt of the defendant even if the judge has already found the defendant guilty of charges and has decided the punishment. The jury can overturn the judge’s verdict and allow the defendant to go free without serving any time for the guilty verdict. This is if they believe that the guilty verdict is unjust for the crime that was committed or the law that is being served upon the defendant. Ethnicity based jury nullification is when the jury would be composed of a specific race based on what race the defendant. This way, the jury would allow the defendant to go free based on the fact of race to prove a point to the criminal justice system that they need to stop going after minorities.
This sentencing goal is critical due to the fact that different state has different sentencing laws. These are issues the American society deals with when a court sanctioned a cruel and unreasonable punishment. Structured Sentencing The public opinion of social justice wanted a different sentencing model that will determine fair justice to convicted criminals. Through criticism of its methods, the
Appeals Process: Guilty Until Proven Innocent Angela Brown Introduction to the Criminal Justice System November 19, 2012 Prof. James W. Jackson Introduction An appeal is usually filed when a defendant to a case believes that a trial court incorrectly applied the law, or that a finding by a judge or jury is not supported by the evidence. The purpose of an appeal is not to retry the case, but to see if the lower court proceedings were conducted properly. As strange as it may seem, the failure of an attorney to make an objection on the record at a trial can cost a client the right to appeal. A trial counsel's failure to make an objection may be construed as "trial strategy." Good trial strategy often requires attorneys to pick their battles, which may involve refraining from making certain objections.
Once a governing body pursues illegal actions, there is potential that all laws will ultimately be ignored and the democratic values of a nation will disintegrate. Furthermore, if the government is not following the rules than the public will also abide by this negative example and society will become a state of turmoil. Horton explains that it is the responsibility of the American public to decide if they will support a government that represents illegitimacy and maltreatment of human beings in the name of the United States of America (Horton, 2008). Since the people elect a leader, it is in their power to choose a governing body that will promote all-American values instead of publically endorsing illegal torture methods and other criminal
According to the Legal Resource Library, “The biggest drawback to plea bargaining is for the innocent defendant who decides to plead guilty to a lesser charge in order to avoid the risk that he or she will be found guilty at trial.” Plea bargaining requires the defendant to waive three rights that he/she is normally protected by until the Fifth and Sixth Amendments: the right to a jury trial, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to confront hostile witnesses. (Cornell.edu) Some people may try to argue that plea bargaining in unconstitutional, however, this argument has been repeatedly overruled by the Supreme Court. There are a lot of controversial issues surrounding plea bargaining, and victims’ rights groups are arguing that the victim should have inputs and a voice into the bargain that is being established between the prosecutor and the defendant. Victim rights activists also feel that defendants undermine the criminal justice system in its entirety and defendants are let off too