Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Groupthink
Serving on a Jury amidst Groupthink
Jury duty -- that horrible obligation all American citizens have to endure. No one wants to do it; yet, it is a crime to try and unlawfully get out of it. Serving on a jury does pace the individual in a position of power to judge the innocence or guilt of another person. This is not a job that should be taken lightly, although many people do not wish to put for the great effort and time that is needed to serve on a jury without bias. Still, there are people's lives on the line. The defendants depend on he members of the jury to provide them a chance at an unbiased trial. Yet, the one thing that can hinder that process is groupthink. Unfortunately, groupthink can occur often within the context of a jury board, making it crucial for every individual to try to avoid giving in and just agreeing with the group and thus possibly place an innocent person in a horrible predicament.
Groupthink...
Essentially, it is a term meant to explain the type of psychological stress a group can place on an individual, thus often coercing them to change their opinions or behaviors in order to match according to the group's standards. The process occurs often, in almost every type of social situation, where individuals are impacted by the various groups around them. Groupthink can make perfectly sane and decent people act in immoral or outrageous ways. The events of history have shown cases where groupthink can impact individual action so much, that everyday people can commit heinous acts without any other reason other than the inevitable influence of the group.
Serving on a jury board can present cases which invoke elements of groupthink. In many major cases, jurors might succumb to the influence of the group in order to make a decision on the case…
Judicial Process The 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause exists to protect the right of a defendant to confront those who are testifying against him or her. This means that the defendant has the right to face those making the accusations in a court of law (Revolutuionary War and Beyond, 2011). There are two main purposes to the Confrontation Clause. The defendant receives protection from statements made outside the court that can be
The district appeals court does not hear a case in its entritiy, rather the justices review the case file and lawyer's arguments and hear a short in-person argument to ask questions and make a decision. This appeal is an appeal by right according to the Constitution, and anyone who appeals to their district's court of appeals will have their case reviewed. Here, the appeals courts in all five cases,
Third, the degree to which the suspect is confronted with apparent evidence of guilt; this means that it is impermissible to confront the suspect with the evidence to suggest that there is no point in refusing to confess. Fourth, whether the suspect is advised and made aware that he or she may freely terminate the conversation and/or request to be represented by legal counsel; this means that the voluntariness
For example, there is currently a case in Florida were a 50-year-old woman shot and killed her teenage son and daughter. She said she did it because they were "mouthy" to her and she was tired of it. There is no word yet on whether she will plead insanity, but there is evidence that she purchased a gun days before the shooting occurred (Brennan, 2011). That could block her
Another example of an exception to the Miranda Rule concerns surreptitious questioning as in the case of Illinois v. Perkins (1990) (2003). In this case it was decided that a criminal suspect's 5th Amendment rights are not being violated if a suspect is speaking with an undercover police officer and incriminating information is given to the undercover police (2003). Essentially speaking, Miranda Rights are not necessary when a criminal
judicial process for a felony criminal charge that is filed in both federal and state courts. The paper includes all the steps that exist between the arrests right through to the pre-trial, trial and appeal. All the contingencies for the various stages are handled and the possibilities of all the outcomes examined. The paper is chronologically organized in order to provide an analysis of how the constitutional protection for