We are taught that being selected as a juror is our civil duty and constitutional right as citizens. I see it as a position of honor because it is where ordinary people participate in making decisions on serious high court matters and those decisions exercise real power. On the other hand there are a lot of citizens that don’t feel the same and would rather not take part in this civil activity at all. Most of them view it as a great inconvenience and a waste of their time. I believe that if they truly weigh the factors of it they will have a change of heart. Thus, I shall take this time now to discuss the selection process of the trial by jury and its pros and cons.
To begin with a jury is a collection of twelve randomly selected persons between the ages of 18 and 65 from the electoral roll. They are all registered voters and are resident citizens of the country who have resided therein for more than five years. The history behind the jury selection process is that the leaders of the country believed that it would be fairer to have serious matters of the court heard by the accused peers. When the selection process first began it only involved persons of a wealthier class that held title to property but that change to accommodate all citizens to break the barriers of cultural diversity. Now we have today an assortment of twelve persons from all avenues of life that can identify with the accused social ailments.
In addition to having a chance to being a part of this process, there are some benefits one leaves with after experiencing this activity. Here are some the pros of its system. The jury system provides a unique opportunity for citizens to participate in their government. The jury system also provides a rare check against excessive government prosecution. It also gives an opportunity for a defendant to be judged by a group of their peers. Moreover, individual prejudice and irrationality is checked by the group, leading to a fairer and a more...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document