There have been a number of high profile protests in the news recently as associated with police and others in the United States. One of the most important of these protests is one which is not as clearly visible as others. Unlike others, American Trial Jury Reform protests are often hidden behind closed doors.
Those working towards reform in the U. S. Justice system have seen the results of this reality first hand. When a jury hands down a verdict, then the sentence should be in line with the facts and precedents related to the case as presented in evidence, and nothing more. Although, it is difficult when either the judge, or jury has previous knowledge.
In most areas, judges allow jurors to decide the facts on a case. After which, the jury deliberates as to whether a Defendant is guilty or innocent, hand down a verdict, then allow the judge to determine sentencing based largely on precedents and State requirements.
Criminal cases can often move ahead to a hearing faster than lawyers can keep up at times. Having a case heard in a hearing versus a jury trial can be a dangerous ordeal, especially if the individual is innocent. For, while evidence can be presented to a jury in a court of law, no circumstantial, or criminal evidence is generally allowed in a hearing.
Even when there is a trial, judges often attempt to intimidate jurors to follow specific instructions, instructions set forth by the judge. In reality, these instructions are only advisory though the judge can prosecute any attorney for contempt if they even try to inform the juror of the jury's right to decide the law based on anything other than the facts of a case.
As all cases involve legal issues and matters which are private in nature, it is essential that there are also guidelines set related to the distribution of such knowledge. Generally, the instructions would be the same as in a court of law in which the jurors are commanded to not talk, or write about the case for a specified amount of time once a verdict is handed down in the case.
It can be interesting to sit as a juror in a trial. Sitting with others and hearing a case for any period of time, whether a half day, full day, week or month long trial, most often doing so can be a learning experience. If nothing else, individuals can get insight into how well the court and justice system work in the State in which the proceedings are being held.
When it comes to reform, it can often take a long time to incorporate laws into action. As the world has seen, there are even those in law enforcement who can not be trusted. Something that has also been proven to the be case with at least one prison guard at the Montford Unit in Lubbock. Seems rather than learn how to care for the disabled inmate, it was easier to kill the sixth three year old man. Hopefully, if reform takes place, these and other issues will be incorporated with tough sentences for those behaving in such fashion, especially those with disabilities whom are no doubt much weaker than the guards who handle them.
Those working towards reform in the U. S. Justice system have seen the results of this reality first hand. When a jury hands down a verdict, then the sentence should be in line with the facts and precedents related to the case as presented in evidence, and nothing more. Although, it is difficult when either the judge, or jury has previous knowledge.
In most areas, judges allow jurors to decide the facts on a case. After which, the jury deliberates as to whether a Defendant is guilty or innocent, hand down a verdict, then allow the judge to determine sentencing based largely on precedents and State requirements.
Criminal cases can often move ahead to a hearing faster than lawyers can keep up at times. Having a case heard in a hearing versus a jury trial can be a dangerous ordeal, especially if the individual is innocent. For, while evidence can be presented to a jury in a court of law, no circumstantial, or criminal evidence is generally allowed in a hearing.
Even when there is a trial, judges often attempt to intimidate jurors to follow specific instructions, instructions set forth by the judge. In reality, these instructions are only advisory though the judge can prosecute any attorney for contempt if they even try to inform the juror of the jury's right to decide the law based on anything other than the facts of a case.
As all cases involve legal issues and matters which are private in nature, it is essential that there are also guidelines set related to the distribution of such knowledge. Generally, the instructions would be the same as in a court of law in which the jurors are commanded to not talk, or write about the case for a specified amount of time once a verdict is handed down in the case.
It can be interesting to sit as a juror in a trial. Sitting with others and hearing a case for any period of time, whether a half day, full day, week or month long trial, most often doing so can be a learning experience. If nothing else, individuals can get insight into how well the court and justice system work in the State in which the proceedings are being held.
When it comes to reform, it can often take a long time to incorporate laws into action. As the world has seen, there are even those in law enforcement who can not be trusted. Something that has also been proven to the be case with at least one prison guard at the Montford Unit in Lubbock. Seems rather than learn how to care for the disabled inmate, it was easier to kill the sixth three year old man. Hopefully, if reform takes place, these and other issues will be incorporated with tough sentences for those behaving in such fashion, especially those with disabilities whom are no doubt much weaker than the guards who handle them.
About the Author:
You can visit tunno.com for more helpful information about Understanding American Trial Jury Reform Protests.
No comments:
Post a Comment