Jurysystem in the United States
Itis an indisputable fact that countries all over the world have someform of a jury system in play, apparently because they have notfound, yet, a better way to dependably ensure that defendants receivethe most reasonable trial procedures (Wilson et al., 2014, p. 309).Personally, I do not think our jury system is just and fair. Bearingin mind that a jury is an assemblage of "vetted peers" whoneed not have the slightest hint of the law or legal procedures, I amconvinced that the jury system of the United States is not just.
Iconsider it a possibility that the whole concept would be better ifthe jury were to be comprised of professional jurors who are adept inmatters regarding the law. Having an inexperienced and inept boardexposes defendants to the mercies of an irrational group that doesn`tuse the logics of the law to draw sound judgments, but personalfeelings and emotions. Unlike a judge that applies the rule of law, ajury, to me, is a group of enthusiastic listeners whose opinionsdirectly affect another individual`s life which is not just andfair. In as much as I don`t think jurors are fair, there are someadvantages of a jury system.
Thepublic trusts the jury because they are not part of the judiciary,and therefore, are allowed to apply local values and common sense tothe facts and evidence of a case (Wilson et al., 2014, p. 315). Theinvolvement of lay people (peers) is an advantage because the laymenwould probably support a defendant, unlike a judge who might begroundlessly bent on putting a defendant behind bars (Wilson et al.,2014, p. 322). As a demerit, jurors might be tempted to draw hastyverdicts to go home early, which might end up with the wrongfulconviction of innocent citizens. Furthermore, ethnic minorities donot register to cast their votes, a factor that locks them out of thejudicial system of the U.S (Wilson et al., 2014, p. 334).
Wilson,S., Rutherford, H., Storey, T., & Wortley, N. (2014). The jury.U.S.Legal System,308-334. Retrieved March 24, 2016.