Recent orders
Should Verdicts Be Unanimous or Substantial Majority
Should Verdicts Be Unanimous or Substantial Majority?
Student’s name
Institutional affiliation
Should Verdicts Be Unanimous or Substantial Majority?
A unanimous jury verdict is a verdict where all jurors reach a unanimous verdict meaning that they have to all agree on whether the defendant is not guilty or guilty. The United States has two court systems, namely state and federal courts. Each system caters to different case types. In the federal court system, the jury is required to reach a unanimous verdict regardless of whether the trial is civil or criminal. On the other hand, a substantial majority verdict is a verdict that is decided upon by 11 jurors in a jury of 12 people when the verdict is being returned or ten jurors in 11 people at the time of returning a verdict. This essay discusses whether all verdicts are required to be unanimous or only a substantial majority including the advantages and disadvantages.
While the jury verdicts for federal courts are required to be unanimous, the verdicts made by state courts are not required to be anonymous. In state courts, whether the jury will be unanimous depends on the type of trial and state. Almost all states have made it mandatory for juries to settle on a unanimous verdict in all criminal trials (Kurland, 2021). In civil trials, nearly one-third of states need a substantial majority for a verdict. Some states need a majority of the money at issue during the trial goes below a certain amounts, and a unanimous verdict during all times.
Unanimous jury verdicts are beneficial as they ensure that defendants do not get convicted until the prosecution proves to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecutors seeking to convict criminal defendants are tasked with proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. The way to ensure the standards is met is by making it a requirement for the jury to get to a conclusion. Notably, unanimity is now a requirement for jury verdicts in federal courts and in every state. The unanimous verdict requirement means the decision as to whether the crime committed is left for more than one juror (Bouton, Llorente-Saguer, & Malherbe, 2018). This means that the jurors must substantially discuss and agree to the principal factual elements that underlie a specific offense or they make disagree on tangential pieces of evidence. For instance, during prosecution for a case of theft, the prosecutor’s case can include evidence of what the accused intended to do with the stolen items. The jury does not need to accept that the intentions had been planned. It is enough for them to agree that the accused planned on temporarily depriving the owner of stolen goods among other things. For a verdict to be declared unanimous, all jurors are required to arrive at a final decision which is unambiguous and clear. The court judge at the trials is tasked with ensuring a verdict fulfills this requirement. This is done by polling all jurors in open court, where the judge asks the juror if that is their final verdict. It is not uncommon to hear a juror respond no at the point at which the judge tends jurors back to the chambers for more deliberations.
It is worth noting that until recently, all jury members were required to agree in a trial before they find a person not guilty or guilty. However, this has now changed with people being found not guilty or guilty by a majority verdict in state offenses. The majority juries have advantages and disadvantages. On the positive side, majority juries tend to reduce the number of hung juries and have less problems caused by rogue jurors (Hedden, 2017). Additionally, majority jury verdicts are beneficial as there are less chances of intimidation and compromised verdicts are avoided. The majority jury verdicts are advantageous as they lead to better jury deliberation and prevent the conviction of innocent persons. On the downside, majority rules cause disagreements if the jury is not unreasonable.
In closing, while some verdicts are required to be unanimous others are decided by a substantial majority verdict. Unanimous verdicts are where jurors agree beyond reasonable doubt about the defendant being guilty or not guilty. Unanimous verdicts help avoid the conviction of an innocent person. A majority verdict is where eleven jurors decide a verdict while the jury has twelve people. The laws about unanimous jury verdicts tend to be confusing when the need to consult with a qualified attorney.
References
Bouton, L., Llorente-Saguer, A., & Malherbe, F. (2018). Get rid of unanimity rule: the superiority of majority rules with veto power. Journal of Political Economy, 126(1), 107-149.
Hedden, B. R. (2017). Should juries deliberate?. Social Epistemology, 31(4), 368-386.
Kurland, K. (2021). With Unanimity and Justice for All: The Case for Retroactive Application of the Unanimous Jury Verdict Requirement. Nw. JL & Soc. Pol’y, 17, 49.
Should the U.S Be More or Less involved in the world and Why
Should the U.S Be More or Less involved in the world and Why?
Student’s name
Institutional affiliation
The United States of America is important to the world as it is its largest economy and military power. Having the third largest population of 325 million, the United States economy accounts for a quarter of the global wealth a figure that stood at $17.97 trillion in 2015. The United States of America is a superpower because of its huge economy, powerful military and key role in international institutions such as NATO and the United nations. The United States should be more involved in the world as its involvement has more positive outcomes than negative ones. The re-emergence of Russia and the rise in power of China will continue to challenge the United States global dominance. This essay delves into why the United States should be more involved in the world.
The United States should continue being involved in the world as it opens up new opportunities and markets for growth. Compared to other developed countries, the United States records high incomes and is home to millions of entrepreneurs that have developed some of the world’s most sought-after products like Facebook. According to a survey by Pew Research, in 2013, 66% of the participants said the United States’ involvement in the world is a good thing (Cook & Ehrlich, 2018). The majority of Democrats, Republicans, and independents, as well as significant majorities across the income and education categories have positive reviews pertaining to the US involvement in global economies. Markets and opportunities tend to expand when companies that have been birthed in the US expand to other continents across the world. For instance, companies such as Apple, and Microsoft, can expand to other contents and expand clientele. Businesses such as Target, Walmart, and CostCo get opportunities to open new branches in European countries, which helps boost the economies. Additionally, being involved in world affairs attracts both high-skilled and low-skilled workers from other countries. The 2013 Pew Research survey found that high-skilled workers are helpful in boosting the economy. Similarly, an increased number of low-skilled workers from neighboring countries is also beneficial for the world economy. Because it has a strong economy, the United States gives international financial aid plenty, with some foundations and agencies donating up to billions of dollars each year.
`Another reason the United States should be more involved in the world has to do with the fact that its cultural influence runs deep. The United States culture extends across the world through the English language. More than two billion people in the world speak the English language today (Ehrlich, Cook, & Yin, 2018). The majority of these English speakers have adopted the Americanised English version. United States films, music, video games, TV programmes have a huge domestic market of over 300 million customers alone in the US, not forgetting the influence the get in other sectors of the world. Notably, the United States tends to have a cultural and social impact on its immediate neighbours, including Canada, Mexico, and North America as a whole.
In closing, the United States of America remains to be the greatest country of all time. Owing to its strong economy and powerful military, the United States is deemed a superpower. The United States should be more involved in the world as its involvement in global matters opens doors for new markets and opportunities. Also, through the influence of the English language, the US involvement in global matters tends to boost the culture of other people.
References
Cook, A., & Ehrlich, I. (2018). Was higher education a major channel through which the US became an economic superpower in the 20th century?. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 23(4), 515-553.
Ehrlich, I., Cook, A., & Yin, Y. (2018). What Accounts for the US Ascendancy to Economic Superpower by the Early Twentieth Century? The Morrill Act–Human Capital Hypothesis. Journal of Human Capital, 12(2), 233-281.
Should the Police, Military, Doctors and Other Special Service Personnel Engage In Strikes
Should the Police, Military, Doctors and Other Special Service Personnel Engage In Strikes?
Name
Course number
Professor
Date
Labor strike or strike action is a mass go slow carried out by employees of a certain company or industry. A strike ordinarily takes place as a response to employee complaints. During the industrial revolution, strikes became common as mass labor became vital in the mines and factories. During this time strikes were immediately made illegal by the factory owners as they had greater political power than the workers. Strikes were legalized in most western countries in early 20th century and late 19th century (Cihon & Castagnera, 2011). The paper focuses on whether the police, military, doctors and other special personnel have a right to strike.
Most times strikes are used as a pressure strategy by workers to pressure the government to change policies. Strikes are a fragment of a wider social movement that takes form of a crusade of civil opposition. This is because in most occasions, strikes subvert the rule of the supreme power. Section 7 of The National Labor Relations Act states that all employees have the right to engage in resolute activities aimed at collective bargaining or any other form of mutual aid or protection. Strikes are encompassed among the resolute actions protected for employees in section 7.
Section 13 of the National Labor Relations Act also covers the right to strike. This section states that nothing in the National Labor Relations Act except that which is stated in the act will be used to either interfere or diminish the right to strike or affect the limitations and qualifications on the right. According to this section, all special personnel have the right to strike. The two sections make it clear that all employees have a right to strike but then places limitations and qualifications of exercising this right. The limitations and qualifications are placed for employees whose strike action might lead to a national emergency. For instance, healthcare professions have to give a 10 day notice to the involved employers or the government before they strike (National Labor Relations Act, 2013). All employees have a right to be in a labor union that fights for their rights. The police and military are in the labor union thus have the right to strike.
Employees that strike for a lawful object are classified into two main categories that are, the economic strikers and the unfair labor practice strikers. Employees that fall under the unfair labor practice strikers have greater rights of reinstatement to their jobs as compared to the economic strikers (Cihon & Castagnera, 2011). Economic strikers retain their employee status and cannot be discharged but they can be replaced by their employer. These strikers are not entitled to being reinstated if they unconditionally decide to go back to work and the employer had already hired bona fide permanent replacements. If the board finds that economic strikers and unfair labor practice strikers that have been an unconditional request to be reinstated and have been unlawfully denied reinstatement by their employer the board can award the strikers back pay as from the time they should have been reinstated.
Conclusively, military, police, doctors and other specialized personnel have a right to strike. They are employees like any other employees. Since special personnel striking might cause a national emergency, there are limitations and qualifications that are put for their strikes. Doctors and other healthcare professionals have to give 10 days’ notice before they strike.
References
Cihon, P. J., & Castagnera, J. (2011). Employment & labor law. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
National Labor Relations Board. (2013). National Labor Relations Act. Retrieved from < http://www.nlrb.gov/resources/national-labor-relations-act>