Our Legal System Analysis

The Essence of Our Legal System
Spending time in the courtroom is definitely not like spending time in front of the television set watching Law and Order. In fact, the two are really nothing alike. A room full of observers and people invested in the case usually does not present itself in the actual courtroom. The attorneys are not amazing orators who know just what to say to change the entire outcome of the case. Media personnel are no where to be found. Sometimes one may even think that the courtrooms are deserted historical sights only open for special occasions. All of these things came as quite a shock to me when I spent my time in the courts. At times my experience was interesting and fun, but more often it was boring and not
This power belongs to the state, an issue that is explored in A Trial by Jury. So, at this point there is a dilemma in the analysis of the jury's respect for the system. Why does the system work? Why does the jury hold the system in high esteem? Does this respect come from the fact that the system is so powerful or is this a genuine respect for the quality of the U.S. legal system? Do jurors come in, tell the truth and act professional because they are afraid what they state may do them if they do not? Or, do jurors act in such a way because they value the justice that the system aims to deliver? In A Trial by Jury, Burnett articulates that "in the end there was, simply, the final power of the state. There was always this. This was a power even more terrifying, in a way, than a man with a knife in a closed room" (161). This unchecked power—is this what makes our legal system legitimate? Is this what causes citizens to acquiesce to the procedures? If that power creates jurors who choose to do the best job with the information provided to them, is it worth it? Is it worth having people who are scared making things function properly? I really do not know at this point. At this point, I would rather believe that the system works because it is a system that tries its best to deliver justice and that the jury respects that goal. Hopefully, the
Once again, I have to blame the success of the collaboration of twelve random individuals on the sense of duty that overcomes these ordinary people. I feel as if the jurors will overcome any obstacle given to them in order to resolve the dispute that is put in front of them. This commitment to resolving the dispute is seen by the relatively low hung jury rates. These rates are usually no greater than 10 percent and are many times much lower than that. In my opinion, this indicates the jury's commitment to their job. They commit to resolving the dispute, but only when an answer to the dispute can be