The civil and criminal justice system in America relies heavily on juries in deciding a person’s guilt, innocence, or even determining whether a specific party should be held negligent for a particular action or inaction. Jurors are summoned to serve on a jury in the community which they live. Lawyers want citizens to serve on a jury who can listen to facts and come to a conclusion based on the facts put on at trial. Jurors are supposed to be unbiased in a case; however, that is not always the case.
The motion picture film, Run Away Jury, is a perfect example of a jury which is not the way people view jury duty. First, a little background on the film Run Away Jury. Run Away Jury involves a civil lawsuit which resulted from the workplace …show more content…
For example, a juror stated at the beginning of jury deliberations the second amendment is important and it is not the fault of the gun manufacturing company that someone killed Woods. So, a juror acknowledged the constitutional right to bear arms and initially believed the jury could not find the manufacturer at fault for the death. As for natural rights, Easter believed it is his right to review the facts and form a conclusion. Some members of the jury believed due to social conditions and the gun maker's actions contributed to the shooting of Wood. Easter played upon everyone morality when he spoke of Wood being gunned down at work. The right to live and enjoy life without it being taken so without provocation and it would not have happened if Vicksburg Arms wasn’t negligent.
In conclusion, in relation to the movie, Run Away Jury, the jurors did not let the threat of individual harm interfere in the performance of their duties. Personally, I do believe if Easter had not been in the jury room then it is quite possible that the outcome would have been different. From experience, citizens who serve on a jury will serve ethically and morally; however, if placed in a situation where a juror had to choose between something potentially affecting them in the long term it is possible a juror would make a different
The motion picture film, Run Away Jury, is a perfect example of a jury which is not the way people view jury duty. First, a little background on the film Run Away Jury. Run Away Jury involves a civil lawsuit which resulted from the workplace …show more content…
For example, a juror stated at the beginning of jury deliberations the second amendment is important and it is not the fault of the gun manufacturing company that someone killed Woods. So, a juror acknowledged the constitutional right to bear arms and initially believed the jury could not find the manufacturer at fault for the death. As for natural rights, Easter believed it is his right to review the facts and form a conclusion. Some members of the jury believed due to social conditions and the gun maker's actions contributed to the shooting of Wood. Easter played upon everyone morality when he spoke of Wood being gunned down at work. The right to live and enjoy life without it being taken so without provocation and it would not have happened if Vicksburg Arms wasn’t negligent.
In conclusion, in relation to the movie, Run Away Jury, the jurors did not let the threat of individual harm interfere in the performance of their duties. Personally, I do believe if Easter had not been in the jury room then it is quite possible that the outcome would have been different. From experience, citizens who serve on a jury will serve ethically and morally; however, if placed in a situation where a juror had to choose between something potentially affecting them in the long term it is possible a juror would make a different