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.
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.
Should Juries be used to determine a verdict? Fayaz Aleem Jurors are average people, and average people are not knowledgeable or experienced enough to make a decision that could greatly impact someone's life. Being put on trial by a jury of your peers is the foundation of the judicial system for the United States but, it's wrong. Guilt and pressure that comes from having to make a decision that could affect someone's life is dangerous. Although juries are intended to be fair and balanced, and are in theory supposed to prevent biased, incompetent people having that kind power.
What Is A Wrongful Death Lawsuit? If you suspect that someone committed an action that prematurely caused a family member to die, then you should consult a lawyer. Wrongful death claims can be filed in addition to criminal charges. The criminal and civil charges are not connected to each other. A defendant may be found guilty in one case but not guilty in another.
Cost and Benefits When determining the cost/benefit analysis to the exclusionary rule, one must take into consideration the outcome. This can be done by using critical thinking. Does the end justify the means? “The cost is that the exclusionary rule (cost to society) keeps evidence from the jury and makes it more difficult and more impossible to obtain a conviction (because of the loss of the evidence or the necessity of a retrial)” (Cost Benefit Analysis To The Exclusionary Rule, 2011). When officer conduct a search of a person’s house without following proper procedure the evidence that is obtained may not be admissible in court, the result is criminals go free.
The system cannot release numbers of criminals just to even out the numbers between the races that are in jail; doing so would be considered discrimination as well. Individuals that saw the disparity thought that discrimination was involved discovered that there were other choices. Detroit is one city that is known to have a population largely of one race in particular; it only made sense that prisons would more of the one particular race. What questions that should be asked are regarding small towns that have the least members of a race but they represent the majority of that race in their jails. Discrimination The definition of discrimination is an act against individuals solely based on their age, race, or sex, or negative actions against them.
Simpson case because of the amount of attention the media had on the case and the verdict of not guilty. The media has a large influence on how cases will end. Due to this the jury was kept away from any outside sources to eliminate being persuaded one way or another. The evidence presented in this case was not significant enough to find her guilty of first-degree murder. One source states, “The evidence presented by prosecutors to accuse Casey Anthony as the murderer of her child was proved to be inadequate.
In Japan they have incorporated what is called The Lay Judge Act, “The Lay Judge Act establishes the ground rules by which Japan’s new criminal trials are to proceed. Two categories of serious crime are to be adjudicated in the new trials: offenses punishable by death or imprisonment for an indefinite period or with hard labor, and offenses in which the victim has died because of an intentional crime. The law does not give defendants the right to waive a lay judge panel (this is a sore point with some opponents of the new system who note that criminal defendants in America can waive their right to trial by jury), but it does grant discretion to the court to determine that a case which qualifies for a lay judge trial may nonetheless be heard by a traditional panel of three professional judges, as when privacy issues arise in a sex offense case, or the defendant is a gangster who might intimidate lay judges”. (http://www.japanfocus.org/-David_T_-Johnson/3212). Lay Judges are picked just like jury trial are in America.
The media prefer sensational stories about egregious criminal behavior. Once the offender is sentenced, the story usually ends. Prisoners do not have access to the internet. Incarceration is hidden from the eyes of the people, harmful to the morals of prisoners and expensive. Cultural, generational and religious bias prevent us from crediting our ancestors or other countries with effective crime-control techniques.
The United States Judicial System and Racial Profiling ENG 122 Lisa M. Carlo May 27, 2013 The United States Judicial System and Racial Profiling There is reluctance in American society to talk about race and crime because race is a touchy subject. Everything in today's society has to be politically correct. One has to be very careful what they write or say because of the fear of what might happen if someone misunderstood what the real meaning to their statement was. For that reason, when a person talks about race and crime many individuals may interpret their opinions differently. Therefore, many people try to avoid talking about such controversial subjects.