Jury System - Free Essay Example

The American judicial system has always insisted on the jury system despite the changes taking place in the developed world. 90% of the jury trials take place in the United States and most European countries do not understand why the American public is fascinated by jury trials. Does the U.S. system carry the seeds of its own demise, as in other nations that once used juries widely and gradually replaced them with decisions by judges (Vago, 2008, p 48)? The answer to this question can be found by exploring the historical roots of jury trials and how the American legal system inherited this practice from their previous colonial master, England. History of the Jury System During the medieval times, 12 free and lawful men were usually summoned by each community to help the king in deciding the course of justice. For centuries these panels based their decisions on what they knew of local wrongdoing (McLynn, 1989, p 89). For centuries the standard moral code for the comm unity was decided by the decisions of the 12 panelists. As England was evolving into a democratic society, it became clear that the jurors decisions were being influenced by the neighborhood gossip. By the time the American legal system absorbed the British model, U.S. jurors were admonished to ignore anything they might know about the case and decide the facts solely on the evidence presented in court (Rawlings, 1999, p 55). In the British system, the jury trials were seen as potential buffers against any harsh decisions that may be handed down by the king. The jurors added some element of civility to the process, unlike in the past where the determination of guilty and the level of punishment to be handed down were solely decided by the king. Furthermore, the jury proved to be extremely resourceful especially during the bloody code when death penalties were handed to even the pettiest of crimes. The bloody code refers to a period in 17th century England where the death penalty was mandated in almost all manner of crimes in a bid to curb the rising crime levels. Some of the more absurd criminal offenses that warranted the death penalty included stealing horses or sheep, destroying turnpike roads, cutting down trees, unmarried mothers concealing a stillborn child, stealing from a rabbit warren etc. The driving force behind the implementation of such stiff penalties was the unsympathetic nature of the rich and affluent society in Britain. Since the rich made the laws, they enacted the laws that protected their interests. With time, the British juries softened the impact of this by acquitting defendants or finding them guilty of lesser crimes (McLynn, 1989, p 91). The Jury System in America Comparing the role of juries in America to their counterparts in Britain during this era, America viewed trial by jury as a buffer against oppressive prosecutions by their British colonial masters. The turning point proved to be in the 18th century when American publ isher John Peter Zenger was found not guilty by a New York jury on the charge of criticizing a governor appointed by the British king (Honorà ©, 1995, p 112). This created an early momentum for freedom of press such that by the time the country got its independence, the right to a fair trial (by jury) was an attribute expected by every citizen. When the Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791, it stated that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury (Rawlings, 1999, p 58). The right to jury trials was also extended to civil cases. According to television journalist Fred Graham, America continues to be fascinated by jury trials because of the immense power that jurors yield when deciding the guilt or innocence of a citizen. Even though they are simple average citizens, jurors appear to stand above this sovereign nation and they determine if a state should punish or not punish its citizens. The jury system has it flaws and its no more perfect than the entire legal system or the democratic government. However, it gives the US citizens a feeling of representation in the judicial process and they can aim for when creating an even more perfect union which represents the diverse ethnic and economic backgrounds in America. The diversity of the American population later proved to be the Achilles heel of the jury system. The race issue in America elicits strong reactions, more so during the selection of jurors. Traditionally, both the prosecution and defense were granted equal weight in jury selection but some prosecutors overplayed their strikes, referred to as peremptory challenges, and removed African American jurists whom they believed were biased towards favoring defendants in criminal trials. The practice was curbed by the Supreme Court and the level of all-race representation in jury trials has increased. Even though the system is not yet perfect and there still exists some elements of rac ism and prejudice, a majority of the diverse ethnic groups and races are of the opinion that jury trials offer the best form of justice. Americas Preference for Jury Trials An interesting statistic is 29% of adult Americans have served on a jury and most of them believe their service turned them into better citizens (Honorà ©, 1995, p 118). In America trial by jury has moved from a right to representation for all guilty parties to an essential prerequisite in this free society. From the days of their forefathers, an average American understands that the main advantage of a jury trail is it safeguards all defendants from tyranny and excesses by the state. Even William Blackstone, a famous English commentator, went against the norms in his country and lamented that trial by jury is a palladium of our legal rights (Honorà ©, 1995, p 118). Even though trial by judges is a common practice in a majority of democracies across the globe (especially in former British colonies), Am erica has remained steadfast on jury trials and the assumption is the determination of guilt or innocence is too big of a task to be shouldered by experienced judges. Lawyers have always been viewed as a corruptible group of individuals but such viewpoints have never been extended to judges. However, they are human, just like lawyers, and some of them have been linked to bribery allegations involving criminal elements. Allegations of judicial corruption do exist in America and even though most lawyers wont admit it, some judges are also corrupt if one looks at the biases they may have towards specific prosecutors. This trend has been witnessed in judges who have assumed their new roles on the bench after a long and illustrious career as prosecutors. Such judged may inadvertently favor the prosecution, either implicitly or explicitly, and preside over a case in a manner which works against the defense. In countries which havent adopted jury trials, a judge can easily issue a rulin g which favors a particular side and the only checks or balances against such excesses originate from the same chambers he serves in. In contrast jury tampering is a bit more demanding and obtaining a biased ruling isnt as easy as Hollywood makes it. The task of jury tampering is further hampered by the nature of jury composition. Both the prosecutor and the defense are given equal opportunities (and strikes) to select their jurists. Furthermore, the composition of the jury is unknown until the time of the trial (Rawlings, 1999, p 62). Adding to this, jury service is usually a short-term engagement and this makes it even more difficult to establish a corrupt relationship with the jurors (Rawlings, 1999, p 62). Judges have vehemently resisted all allegations of being corruptible and the few that were caught in the act are simply isolated cases. There is some element of truth in this statement since very few judges fit into the criteria of accepting cash/gifts inorder to sway their ruling, unlike lawyers. However, the Achilles heel of judges is after a long tenure of service, they begin acting like government bureaucrats. They become so encrusted within the mindset of laws, rules and regulations that they are unable to distinguish law from justice (Vago, 2008, p 42). Referring to the constitution of democratically elected governments across the globe, the judiciary is independent from the executive and legislature. The job of drafting laws rules and regulations is left to the legislature and its the role of the law enforcement officials to uphold these laws. The lawyers on the other hand are supposed to interpret the law and represent their respective clients (the defendant or the state) to the best of their abilities but within the confines of the law. Judges whove served for long periods of time are unable to distinguish between interpreting the law and ensuring that the defendant gets a just ruling. This folly is usually witnessed in authoritarian regim es where judges take it upon themselves to uphold the law and supersede the mandate of the police and even the prosecutor. Jury trails in America are criticized for being too long and the media circus which follows is an unwanted attention that most foreign judges do not understand. The slow and mundane process of explaining the facts to the jury has the advantage of limiting a judges excesses and every ruling made must incorporate the decision of the jury. The problem of judges acting like government bureaucrats also exists in America but such excesses are also checked by the jury system. The advantage that a jury has is its composed of ordinary Americans and they have a layman understanding of the law; they may not understand the law to the same extent as lawyers or judges but their sole purpose is to ensure that justice was served. Jurors are more likely to ask the deeper and more profound questions when faced with whether to permit the government to punish the defendant (Hono rà ©, 1995, p 115). Is the defendant aware of his wrongdoings and if so, should the jury let him walk even though its evidently clear he committed the crime? Such are the questions which juries debate on and unlike judges; they are allowed to look at the shades of gray when interpreting the law. Judges on the other hand arent allowed to acquit a suspect after its clear that hes committed a crime; its not a judges job to debate on whether the crime committed by the accused was just. A judge will simply sentence the accused after proving guilt and determine the extent of punishment that should be handed down. As previously mentioned, juries have added some element of civility to the legal process and the best example is comparing todays jury system to the bloody code era in 17th century England. The bloody code was a group of laws which prescribed the death penalty to over 200 separate offenses. Such was the brutality of the system in those times that most prisoners usually exhibi ted the utmost indifference to their fate, and appeared to entertain no fear for the consequences of their guilt. Prisoners as young as 14 years were hanged by the neck until they died and thousands of people thronged public squares to see these executions. Historical records have indicated that the youngest prisoners ever executed in Britain were Michael Hammond and his sister Ann. They were aged 7 and 11 respectively. They were hanged on 28th September 1708 for theft. It can be argued that comparing the bloody code to todays jury system is a bit of overkill. However, the American jury system evolved from the British system which had to incorporate the role of the jury inorder to tone down the excesses of the bloody code. Therefore, even if all former British colonies (and other nations) arent adapting a jury system, its clear that their current legal procedures are a lot more civilized because of the actions of the 12 free and lawful men who gave birth to the jury system. An other aspect that shouldnt be forgotten is a jurys verdict is final; Courts around the world can overturn a judges ruling by issuing injunctions but the jurys verdict is considered sacred. That is, no matter how the jury rules, there is nothing either the judge or the prosecutor can do to change or modify the verdict (Vago, 2008, p 47). The best example of this phenomenon was a case in Laredo Texas in 1960 when a man was arrested for possessing marijuana with intent to distribute. When the defendant took to the stand, he tearfully confessed on how he needed the money to support his family which was going through financial difficulties. The federal judge and prosecutor were shocked when the jury returned a Not Guilty verdict. Unable to contain himself, the judge went on a rampage and screamed at the jurors, stating that they were the dumbest people to have ever served on a jury in his courtroom and advised them that their names would be permanently stricken from the federal jury roll s in Laredo (Rawlings, 1999, p 63). The defendant walked away from the court a free man. Who is to blame in this situation? The jury for not seeing a criminal for who he really is or the prosecutor for not being able to prove beyond reasonable doubt a rather obvious conviction? The only sure thing is the system is not at fault. Conclusion The right to a fair trail and the opportunity to plead for the courts mercy is right that every American knows he or she deserves. The defendant mentioned above got his day in court and pleaded his case, but a bit too excessively. While letting a guilty man walk might leave a foul taste in the mouths of many legal academicians, its a low price to pay when compared to denying an innocent man his day in court and sentencing him without hearing his side of the story. The bloody code proved how an ass the law can be when too much power is wielded by the state.

Divided Strategy Coursework - 3025 Words

Divided Strategy Coursework (Coursework Sample) Content: Dividend strategy, theories and dividend policyBy NameCourseProfessorUniversityCity/StateDateINTRODUCTIONThe paper assesses the dividend strategy chosen by the Aberdeen asset management Plc which deals with asset management globally. The organization invests in equity financing, property, fixed income. The company trades in 26 countries and has 33 operating offices equipped with 2200 staff members. The board of director's, advocates for a dividend policy of 10% per share which will constitute a total dividend payment of 16% per share. However, the board still advocates a progressive dividend policy. The investment decision is viable at the present as it has been providing a real service to the companyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s customers in the long term.Question 1The use of equity financing is good as the company can use its cash as well as those of the investors in the initial stages of business and their initial cost rather than settling huge debts to banks, customers and stakeho lders. The company will be able to maintain its daily operations without trouble of settling debts. The use of the equity financing is a valid approach as the prospectus will be used to explain to investors about the state of their money. The prospectus advices the investors about the risk of their money in a brand new initial business where they will understand that in case the business fails they will not have their money back. Equity financing will be essential as the investors will offer advice to Aberdeen asset management which it would not have had in the past. (Arnold, 2005)Changes made to investing in equity financing, will have adverse implications on the company as it will not access any profits in the initial stages of business. Changes in the financing method will mean that the company will pay back all the debts of the investors and even require it to use its own cash to settle the investorà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s debt. Debt financing will put the company in a deficit position, a nd lack of profit will make the investors lack their profits. Another impact of the changing the way of financing is that Aberdeen asset management Plc will be have to act at all times in the interest of the shareholders. It means that any breach of the contract will be a legal consequence. The company will enter into much paper work where it operates asset management to many investors. It will thus be prudent for a company to get some advice from the Securities and Exchange Commission to know the requirements on dividend strategy before entering into more trading operations with investors. (Rich, 2012) The change on the method of financing will be caused by the need to have more funds thus Aberdeen will seek to find new ways of getting funds such as debt financing. The company will need the investors who will give it the loans and thus incur debts thus it needs to pay in the future depending on the terms and conditions. The need for a higher profit margin will be another cause of a change in the financing method thus Aberdeen will be required to use debt financing to get more money for investing. (Emery et al, 2004)Dividend calculation using investment ratiosAberdeen will use the investment ratios which will be a guide to investors whether to have a stake with the organization or not. The equity shareholders will also use the investment ratios result to determine the viability of investing in the companyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s ordinary shares. The investment ratios will include; earning per share, dividend payout ratio, dividend cover ratio, dividend yield ratio and price earnings ratio. (Arnold, 2005)Earnings per shareThe earnings per share ratio will show the earnings per each ordinary share traded. In this case, the company being a public limited company limited by shares and trades its securities public presents in its annual report the basic and the diluted earnings per share. (Rich, 2012) It is through the requirement of 1AS 33 that any public company trading its securities publicly, to present in its financial statements the basic and the diluted earnings per share. The ratio is calculated byEarnings per share = net income after tax à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬ preference dividend *100%Number of outstanding ordinary sharesIn the year 2013,Earnings per share =Basic = 27.16%Diluted = 276.22%Underlying earnings per share =Basic =33.71%Diluted = 32.48%The basic earnings per share in the Aberdeen Plc are 27.16% that has been calculated about the weighted average number of outstanding ordinary shares. However, the diluted earnings per share are determined by considering ordinary shares that are potentially dilutive such as any convertible negotiable instruments and whether they meet the required criteria. The impact of the results above is that the company has still lower performance when compared to other businesses basing on the same financial reporting period and differently financial periods for Aberdeen Company. Investors will not invest in the organization nor lend any money to it as they find no value or quality of the investment. (Coller, 2003)In the year 2012,The earnings per share recorded wereBasic = 18.88%Diluted = 17.55%Underlying earnings per shareBasic = 24.45%Diluted = 22.62%The Earnings per share recorded a loss from the financial statements of Aberdeen asset Management Company. The loss depicts poor financial performance of the company. The impact of this is that the investors will not invest in the company as they will not find any value and quality of the investment. (Coller, 2003)In the year 2011, the earning per share recorded wereBasic = 15.01%Diluted = 14.06%Underlying earnings per shareBasic = 20.13%Diluted = 18.73%A similar case was detected in 2011 as the company recorded a lower financial performance with the loss made from the earning per share. The impact of this is that investors will not invest in Aberdeen Company as they will have little assurance of the value of the money they wish to trade in, and the inve stment is not viable. (Arnold, 2005)Another essential ratio is the dividend payout ratio. The ratio will show the companyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s dividend policy .it is calculatedDividend payout ratio = dividend per share * 100%Earnings per shareThe dividends per share for the years 2013 is 16%, 2012 is 11.5% and for 2011 is 9%.The earnings per share are 2013 is 27.16%, 2012 is 18.88% and 2011 is 15.01%.Calculating dividend payoutIn the year 2013, the dividend payout = 16/27.16*100%Answer = 58.91%In 2012, the dividend payout = 11.5/18.88*100%Answer = 60.91%In 2011, the dividend payout ratio = 9/15.01*100%Answer = 59.96%The implication of the dividend payout ratio in 2013 is that the companyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s policy is not consistent as it has a reduction from the year 2012 to 2013. Investors will want to see a consistent dividend payout ratio in order to invest in Aberdeen asset Management Company. The payout ratios are relatively safe for investors to invest, but a higher dividend payout will lure m ore investors to invest. (Simons, 2000)One will also use the dividend cover ratio to determine the viability of the investment by investors. The dividend cover ratio will be used to determine the number of times the basic dividend will be paid out from the profits of the company. (Simons, 2000)Calculating dividend cover ratioIt is calculated as, Dividends cover ratio = Earnings per shareDividends per shareIn 2013, the dividends cover ratio is = 27.16/16Answer = 1.69 timesIn 2012, the dividend cover ratio = 18.88/11.5Answer = 1.64timesIn 2011 the dividend cover ratio = 15.01/9Answer = 1.67timesThe results show that there is no consistency in the dividends cover as there is a decrease in 2012 of 0.03. Investors will be interested in the consistency of the payment of memberà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s dividends from the companyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s profits. The payment times for the dividends out of the profits is very low, and the implication is that the investors will not invest in the company as they are no t persuaded of the companyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s ability to pay all debts with the current profit. (Pike Neale, 2003)The investors will also need to know the dividend return that they will get from investing in the ordinary shares of the company. The calculation of the dividend yield will thus be necessary to determine the possibility of investors investing in Aberdeen. (Pike Neale, (2003)Calculation of Dividend yield ratioThe dividend yield ratio is calculated asDividend yield ratio = dividend per share *100%Market price per shareIn 2013, the dividend yield will be 16/10*100%Answer = 160%In 2012, the dividend yield ratio = 11.5/10*100%Answer = 115%In 2011, the dividend yield ratio = 9/10*100%Answer = 90%The dividend yield ratios show a real return provided by the ordinary shares invested. The dividend return increases consistently from 2011 to 2013 by a great margin. The margin is of 25% between the year 2011 and 2012 and a margin of 45% in the year 2013 and 2012. The return is good to per suade more investors to invest their ordinary shares in Aberdeen asset Management Company. (Arnold, 2005)Another investment ratio to calculate the dividend is the use of price earnings ratio. The price earnings ratio will be used to determine the economic cost of trading the ordinary shares. It determines how cheap or costly it will be for an investor to trade in a share. (Arnold, 2005)Calculation of dividends price earnings ratioPrice earnings ratio = market value per shareEarnings per shareIn 2013, the price-earnings ratio = 10/27.16Answer = 0.37: 1In 2012, the price-earnings ratio = 10/18.88Answer = 0.52:1In 2011, the price earnings ratio = 10/ 15.01Answer = 0.67T...