The jury selection system is a two-step process system and in the first step. The names of the potential jurors are drawn at random from a list of voter registration than qualification questionnaires are mailed to the named jurors. Based on their responses, the court will place the jurors in one of the four categories named as not qualified, exempt, excused or qualified. The qualified jurors are then reached again via certified mail to appear for jury service (Michael 208). There are problems in general with the jury system in the United States. One of them is the fact that some of the jurors are not qualified to make decisions especially in cases where it involves bending the law. They do not make decisions that are still valid in the long run, and they are likely to end up not solving the problem that exists in the society as it should be solved. It affects the quality and accuracy of tests when they make decisions. Eventually, there will be a continuous reoccurrence of the same concerns in the society. Such problems erode the public trust in the law, and people are likely to disregard the law. If the style carry on, there will be a situation in which the jury decisions will be inconsistent with the law and the evidence that have been presented in a court of justice. To reduce such cases of problems, the focus should not be on giving the jurors more power to limit their going wrong but rather they should be given more tools to do the right thing. For instance, making the jury undergo intelligence tests is one way of maintaining the qualification status in the jury system to ensure that the quality of verdicts is never compromised (Richard 114). Another problem is the fact that there exists a financial problem in maintaining the jury system in some of the states. For some of the people, jury duty poses a financial challenge given that the majority of the states do not pay the workers when they sit on a jury. In other instances, the workers are forced to take a pay cut in the name of full filling their civic duty. It is not encouraging especially for those who work in the judicial system since it will affect the nature of how they deliver their verdicts. In other cases, the jurors may be forced to leave their occupations for a long time, and this increases the backlog of cases in the jury system. Also, when the jurors leave their jobs they may have to content with the fact that some of their decisions do not go well with some of the people they make those decisions for. For instance, those who decide on the mafia cases are likely to fear for their security. The jurors who sit on high profile murder cases may also have to deal with the fact that they will have to face traumatization and stigmatization from the decisions that they make. The explanation to these glitches does not lie in abolishing the judicial system entirely. Rather, there ought to be considerations for revamping it completely. Those who work in the judicial system should be vetted if they are qualified to perform their tasks and if not they should be given alternatives to working in the judicial system, but still deliver on their roles (Robert, Stidham and Kenneth 115).
Works Cited
Abel, Richard L. The Law & Society Reader. New York, NY: New York University Press, 1995. Print.
Carp, Robert A, Ronald Stidham, and Kenneth L. Manning. Judicial Process in America. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press, an imprint of SAGE Publications, 2014. Print.
Michael Ross Fowler. With Justice for All? Prentice-Hall. 1998. Print.
