The U.S. Jury System
In the Bill of Rights, The Fifth Amendment says: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury." In the U.S. legal system, the jury has a very special role to play such as the trier of fact or determining the truth, in ensuring citizen participation in the administration of justice. A citizen’s right to a trial by jury is a central feature of the United States Constitution. It is considered a fundamental principle of the American legal system, although laws and regulations governing jury selection and conviction requirements vary from state to state. Article III of the U.S. Constitution empowers the judicial branch of the national government and also states that all trials shall be by jury. The right was then expanded with the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states in part, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed"(Sixth Amendment - Constitution Annotated | congress.gov).
Types of Juries
There are two types of juries serving different functions in the federal trial courts: trial juries, also known as petit juries, and grand juries. The trial jury(or, petit jury) serves to determine whether the defendant committed the crime as charged in a criminal case, or whether the defendant injured the plaintiff in a civil case. After the trial, they reach a verdict. On the other hand, a grand jury assesses evidence to decide on whether to bring charges. In legal terms, a grand jury determines whether probable cause exists to believe a crime has been committed. Unlike the trial jury, the grand jury does not determine whether a suspect is guilty of a crime. Moreover, defendants and their attorneys do not have the right to appear before the grand jury.
The U.S. Jury System Should Be Adopted by Other Countries?
To answer this question, let's go back to the spirit of this system and why the U.S. utilizes this system to ensure justice is still alive. It serves to fix some mistrials by judges who did not have enough experience to judge rightly, to prevent judges from being influenced by politicians or their supervisors, to reduce bribes, to reduce the errors made by judges, and to improve people's trust in the judgment and judicial system. But, bringing people who are not knowledgeable can make the system flaw.
As we can see, most of the reasons are trying to remedy the possible issues about judges. However, it's not perfect. Many common issues such as bias(juries influenced by emotional, prejudices, regional, or historical factors, leading to unfortunate results.), the ability to apply the law, ignorance of the law, and the cost(the allowances and transportation payments during the process).
In conclusion, I don't think the U.S. jury system should be adopted by every country, but it may benefit many countries where judges are not been well-educated or countries that have serious bureaucracy issues. After all, this system was made for better judgment. So, before any countries that are trying to apply it, they should ask themselves first, why should we apply it, what are the pros and cons, and most importantly, how to execute it.
What Factors should Inform A Country’s Decision To Adopt A Jury System?
Even though we already have a great jury system, in a real courtroom, the bad guys don’t always lose, and the good guys don’t always win. Therefore, do the good guys are highly likely to win and the bad guys tend to lose if we apply the system is the first question we should ask ourselves. If the citizens of a country can help the whole litigation system to be better, then applying a jury system is necessary. However, although the truth is unchangeable, there are always gray areas among good or bad things. Most of the time, it is hard to say one thing is purely good or purely bad. For example, even though Robin Hood is described as stealing money from the rich to help the poor in the face of tyranny, his action is still highly likely to be committed a crime by most judges while the jury is willing to set him free.
The ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution)
Sometimes it is a good idea to try to settle your claim without going to court. As rising costs of litigation and time delays continue to plague litigants, more parties tend to choose ADR programs over complex litigation. ADR is known as Alternative Dispute Resolution. It typically includes negotiation, conciliation, mediation, and arbitration.
Situations in which I Would Choose ADR Over Litigation
i. To save time. If I do not want to waste too much time during a lawsuit, I tend to choose ADR over litigation. For example, I usually choose ADR to settle disputes in car accidents since a court case claiming the cost of repairs to a car and other losses due to a car accident will cost me over one year to reach the final verdict.
ii. To lower the cost. Less time spent to solve a dispute means lower costs for attorneys’ fees if it is not obligated to file a lawsuit.
iii. Privacy and Confidentiality. Typically, litigation is open to be public. Arbitrations are private with only designated parties in attendance and the proceedings are strictly confidential. If it is something I want to keep as a secret such as an embarrassing mistake.
Situations in which I Would Choose Litigation Over ADR
I think there are still some situations when ADR may not be appropriate which means it is unavoidable in some cases, and may even be risky for one of the parties.
i. If I have an urgent need that requires an immediate legal remedy or the other side is not willing to negotiate with me, I might need to go to court instead. Therefore, I will choose litigation.
ii. Agreements reached in mediation do not act as precedents in future cases. They are usually private and confidential. Therefore, if I want to establish a legal point that other people can rely on, I will choose litigation.
iii. When I want to lower compensation amounts, I tend to choose litigation in Taiwan. Oftentimes, compensation is often lower than is likely to be achieved in court I think. Because it requires much more evidence to prove each claim. In the US, it might be the opposite. So, it depends on whether a trial or a settlement will bring better economic benefits.
A List of Topics That I Would Present To Employees To Train Them To Be Vigilant Against Criminal Behavior in An Organization. What Topics Are Considered To Be Most Important?
Good employee training is essential for an organization’s success. I think to make an effort to protect employees and show them that I care about them as human beings instead of just worker bees, they will feel safer and more secure at work, and consequently removing distractions that can undermine their productivity. In the US, Federal law requires training on specific health, safety-related topics, and sexual harassment. However, I think before applying any training program, reducing the turnover rate is one of the top priorities. Employers with high employee turnover tend to train less and spend less on training than other businesses.
To Ensure Employees Understood The Training
To ensure proper adoption, companies and organizations must rely on better leadership. In addition, manage their jobs like they are owners of a small business within the company and they will do for their own self-development. For the benefits of training to persist, I would build in expected accountability through one-on-ones or reviews with a manager. Moreover, leaders need continued coaching to keep the best leadership and to build discipline around the continuous improvement philosophy.
Reference
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Alternative dispute resolution. Legal Information Institute. Retrieved November 20, 2021, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/alternative_dispute_resolution.
Sixth Amendment - Constitution Annotated | congress.gov. (n.d.). Retrieved November 19, 2021, from https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-6/.
The 3rd article of the U.S. constitution. National Constitution Center – The 3rd Article of the U.S. Constitution. (n.d.). Retrieved November 19, 2021, from https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/article/article-iii.
Types of juries. United States Courts. (n.d.). Retrieved November 20, 2021, from https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/jury-service/types-juries.
Posts
