Many Americans regard the jury system as a concrete expression of crucial democratic value

第1题

The right to a trial by jury is a fundamental part of the United States legal system. It i

s a right firmly rooted in our democratic tradition. The jury system provides a buffer between the complex and often inflexible legal system and the average citizen on trial. The right to be judged by a jury is a right that most Americans feel very strongly about. However, due to recent jury decisions, some critics are questioning the value of this institution.

Our jury system is by no means flawless. It is subject to constant scrutiny and debate concerning its merit and its downfalls. As is true in all institutions, juries are capable of making mistakes. Psychological studies have been done on many aspects of jury behavior. Political scientists are also intrigued by juries and the manner in which they arrive at important decisions. Although most Americans believe in the jury system, there has been considerable controversy surrounding it lately. The public has become even more concerned about this institution recently. The outcomes of the Rodney King, the O.J. Simpson, and the Menendez brothers trials in Los Angeles and the dissatisfaction that followed the jury's decisions are three examples of instances when the effectiveness of the jury system has come under fierce attack. From the public reaction to these decisions and others like them, it is very clear that the way in which juries reach their decisions is often as important to the American people as it is to the specific person on trial. Many people feel that the average jurist is not equipped to make the kinds of decisions they are faced with. These critics' suggestions range from restructuring the system up to tally eliminating it.

Most average Americans, I believe, feel that the right to a jury trial is a fundamental one, and its guarantees should be honored. These people would argue that laws are inflexible. They cannot deal with the individual circumstances in each case, but juries can take these into account. Still others believe that juries are favorable because they reflect the morals and values of the community they come from. Indeed, many proponents of the jury support the system because of a particular kind of jury bias, the tendency for jurors, to place justice above the law.

Opponents of the system argue that juries are uneducated in legal procedures and should not be given the type of responsibility they have traditionally had. These people also argue that juries are biased. In fact, the psychological literature provides many examples of this bias. Jurors are less likely to punish a sad or distressed defendant, as opposed to a joyful one, apparently because the defendant is already being punished emotionally. Some opponents say that although juries are instructed not to pay attention to the media, they are more easily influenced by the news than judges. Critics of the jury system also point out that juries are expensive and are often unable to reach an agreement. They argue that the decision making should be left up to the people who know the law, judges and lawyers.

In between these two extremes are those people who agree with the jury system as a whole, but feel that some changes need to be implemented to improve its effectiveness. These people suggest that juries receive instruction prior to hearing testimony. They argue that this would improve the system by providing some working legal knowledge for the jury as well as giving them an idea of what they are to listen for. Research has shown that exposing jurors to the laws involved in their decision making resulted in significantly fewer verdicts of guilty. This finding suggests that lawyers and judges should have the responsibility of insuring that the jury is adequately informed of the legal issues at hand and the laws available to handle those issues.

On the whole, though, I feel that the American guarantee of trial by jury is a valuable one

A．the jury system is unnecessarily complex and rigid

B．recent jury decisions are made against the democratic tradition

C．there is constant debate about its merit and its downfalls

D．Some juries.have made mistakes recently

点击查看答案

第2题

Defense attorneys are vital to the judicial system because without them, it would be impos

sible to ______.

A．defend the civil rights of all Americans

B．present a truth to the jury that is unbiased and not manipulated

C．advocate on behalf of defendants who are obviously guilty

D．practice the adversarial trial system

点击查看答案

第3题

To which of the arguments does the author agree？ ______.A．The jury system is flawed beyond

To which of the arguments does the author agree？ ______.

A．The jury system is flawed beyond remedy

B．Some improvements should be made on the jury system

C．The jury system should be kept as it is

D．The jury should be composed of judges and lawyers

点击查看答案

第4题

The author's attitude towards the jury system is______.A．neutralB．biasedC．negativeD．positi

The author's attitude towards the jury system is______.

A．neutral

B．biased

C．negative

D．positive

点击查看答案

第5题

Many Americans regard the jury system as a concrete expression of crucial democratic value

s, including the principles that all citizens who meet minimal qualifications of age and literacy are equally competent to serve on juries; that jurors should be selected randomly from a representative cross section of the community; that no citizen should be denied the right to serve on a jury on account of race, religion, sex, or national origin; that defendants are entitled to trial by their peers; and that verdicts should represent the conscience of the community and not just the letter of the law. The jury is also said to be the best surviving example of direct rather than representative democracy. In a direct democracy, citizens take turns governing themselves, rather than electing representatives to govern for them.

But as recently as in 1968, jury selection procedures conflicted with these democratic ideals. In some states, for example, jury duty was limited to persons of supposedly superior intelligence, education, and moral character. Although the Supreme Court of the United States had prohibited intentional racial discrimination in jury selection as early as the 1880 case of Strauder v. West Virginia, the practice of selecting so-called elite or blue-ribbon juries provided a convenient way around this and other antidiscrimination laws。

The system also failed to regularly include women on juries until the mid-20th century. Although women first served on state juries in Utah in 1898, it was not until the 1940s that a majority of states made women eligible for jury duty. Even then several states automatically exempted women from jury duty unless they personally asked to have their names included on the jury list. This practice was justified by the claim that women were needed at home, and it kept juries unrepresentative of women through the 1960s.

In 1968, the Congress of the United States passed the Jury Selection and Service Act, ushering in a new era of democratic reforms for the jury. This law abolished special educational requirements for federal jurors and required them to be selected at random from a cross section of the entire community. In the landmark 1975 decision Taylor v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court extended the requirement that juries be representative of all parts of the community to the state level. The Taylor decision also declared sex discrimination in jury selection to be unconstitutional and ordered states to use the same procedures for selecting male and female jurors.

From the principles of the US jury system, we learn that_________.

A．both literate and illiterate people can serve on juries

B．defendants are immune from trial by their peers

C．no age limit should be imposed for jury service

D．judgment should consider the opinion of the public

点击查看答案

第6题

Many Americans regard the jury system as a concrete expression of crucial democratic value

s, including the principles that all citizens who meet minimal qualifications of age and literacy are equally competent to serve on juries; that jurors should be selected randomly from a representative cross section of the community; that no citizen should be denied the right to serve on a jury on account of race, religion, sex, or national origin ; that defendants are entitled to trial by their peers; and that verdicts should represent the conscience of the community and not just the letter of the law. The jury is also said to be the best surviving example of direct rather than representative democracy. In a direct democracy, citizens take turns governing themselves, rather than electing representatives to govern for them.

But as recently as in 1968, jury selection procedures conflicted with these democratic ideals. In some states, for example, jury duty was limited to persons of supposedly superior intelligence, education, and moral character. Although the Supreme Court of the United States had prohibited intentional racial discrimination in jury selection as early as the 1880 case of Strauder v. West Virginia, the practice of selecting so-called elite or blue-ribbon juries provided a convenient way around this and other antidiscrimination laws.

The system also failed to regularly include women on juries until the mid-20th century. Although women first served on state juries in Utah in 1898, it was not until the 1940s that a majority of states made women eligible for jury duty. Even then several states automatically exempted women from jury duty unless they personally asked to have their names included on the jury list. This practice was justified by the claim that women were needed at home, and it kept juries unrepresentative of women through the 1960s.

In 1968, the Congress of the United States passed the Jury Selection and Service Act, ushering in a new era of democratic reforms for the jury. This law abolished special educational requirements for federal jurors and required them to be selected at random from a cross section of the entire community. In the landmark 1975 decision Taylor v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court extended the requirement that juries be representative of all parts of the community to the state level. The Taylor decision also declared sex discrimination in july selection to be unconstitutional and ordered states to use the same procedures for selecting male and female jurors.

From the principles of the US jury system,we learn that______.

A．both literate and illiterate people can sever on juries

B．defendants are immune from trial by their peers

C．no age limit should be imposed for jury service

D．judgment should consider the opinion of the public

点击查看答案

第7题

Why many American students decided to study aboard？A．Because thousands of young Americans

Why many American students decided to study aboard？

A．Because thousands of young Americans wanted to go to Germany to study.

B．Because young Americans were not satisfied with their school system in the USA.

C．Because American professors were not as good as those abroad.

D．Because European universities were not connected with churches.

点击查看答案

第8题

Why many students decided to study aboard？A．Because thousands of young Americans wanted to

Why many students decided to study aboard？

A．Because thousands of young Americans wanted to go to Germany to study.

B．Because young Americans were not satisfied with their school system in the USA

C．Because American professors were not as good as those abroad.

D．Because European universities were not connected with churches.

点击查看答案

第9题

Some authorities trace the jury system to Anglo Saxon or even more ______ Germanic times.A

Some authorities trace the jury system to Anglo Saxon or even more ______ Germanic times.

A．remote

B．similar

C．austere

D．barbaric

点击查看答案