The Value Of A Jury System Essay -- essays research papers

The Value of a board SystemThe Founders of our nation understood that no idea was more central to our Bill of Rights -- indeed, to politics of the people, by the people, and for the people -- than the citizen dialog box. It was cherished not only as a bulwark against absolutism but also as an essential means of educating Americans in the habits and duties of citizenship. By enacting the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the Constitution, the Framers sought to install the right to trial by venire as a cornerstone of a free society. The Framers of the Constitution felt up that juries -- because they were composed of ordinary citizens and because they owed no financial allegiance to the government -- were natural to thwarting the excesses of powerful and overzealous government officials. The jury trial was the only right explicitly included in each of the state constitutions devised surrounded by 1776 and 1789 . And the criminal jury was one of few rights explicitly me ntioned in the authentic federal constitution proposed by the Philadelphia Convention. Anti-federalists complained that the proposed constitution did not go cold enough in protecting juries, and federalists eventually responded by enacting three intact amendments guaranteeing fearful, petit, and civil juries. The need for juries was especially acute in criminal cases A grand jury could block any prosecution it deemed unfounded or malicious, and a petit jury could likewise interpose itself on behalf of a suspect charged unfairly. The famous Zenger case in the 1730s dramatized the libertarian advantages of juries . When New Yorks royal government sought to stifle its reinvigoratedspaper critics through criminal prosecution, New York grand juries refused to indict, and a petit jury famously refused to convict .     But the Founders vision of the jury went far beyond merely protecting defendants. The jurys parliamentary role was intertwined with separate ideas enshrined in the Bill of Rights, including free speech and citizen militias. The jury was an essential democratic institution because it was a means by which citizens could engage in self-government. nowhere else -- not even in the voting booth -- must Americans grow together in person to deliberate over fundamental matters of justice . Jurors face a solemn obligation to overlook personal differences and prejudices to fairl... ... jury service. If the jury system is to remain a central institution of democracy and citizenship, it must be refined. Jury trials must attract engaged and thoughtful citizens the rules of the courts must treat jurors as sovereign, self-governing citizens rather than as children. To this end, we imply a number of reforms. In many instances, these changes would require no new laws, but merely a willingness on the part of the courts to unleash the prevalent sense of the ordinary citizen.ReferencesAlschuler, Albert, "Our faltering jury.," Publi c Interest,      Jan 1996, pp. 28.Culp, Douglass, "Do criminal juries allow too many defendants loose?," Vol. 12, Birmingham Business Journal, 18 Dec 1995, pp. 15.Curriden, Mark, "Jury reform.," Vol. 81, ABA Journal,     Nov 1995, pp. 72.McElhaney, James, "Jury instructions.," Vol. 81, ABA Journal, Nov 1995, pp. 91.Savage, David., "A jury of your peers.," Vol. 81, ABA Journal, Oct 1995, pp. 40.Zobel, Hiller, "The jury on trial.," Current, Nov 1995, pp. 8.