The right to have fair judgment is one the main issues in democracy today, and this judgment is established by the right to an impartial jury. The selection of the jury is the process or the methodology in which the lawyer and the court select or deselect the people who will be serving as the jury in a case. This paper addresses the problems and difficulties that might arise during the process of jury selection for a trial.
The jury although randomly selected for the jury pool, has their life experiences and thus has a preconceived opinion on various life topics. The first problem that should be solved in the process of selecting the jury is identifying which person is most likely biased against the case in court. The reason is that this person, no matter how logical the law arguments would be presented, is most likely will not change his opinion. As an example, a woman who raises children by herself and has financial difficulties will most likely be biased against cases of financial corruption.
Another factor that arises when selecting the jury is the fact that the jury pool varies in fields of education and occupation. The task that the lawyer has is to inform or in other words “educate the jury of the many aspects of the case. However, in specific cases some jurors are less likely will be acquainted with the case due to lack of knowledge in some specific field. The most obvious example is the cases that associated with computers and cyber crimes, which require at least basic knowledge and background to understand the case.
The last problem that might occur during the jury selection is probably attaining the balance during the process of deselecting the jurors. Some believe that the intentional exclusion of individual segments of the population from jury pool is, at most, no longer occurring. Others argue that the courts have not completely disrupted limits to jury involvement that have the power of deselecting certain jurors. Whether it is intentional or not it is vital to keep that in mind when participating in the jury selection, because there would always be speculations about the neutrality of the choices made.
The jury selection is a responsible task which needs thorough examination and analysis, and while it seems like a simple suitable/unsuitable selection, it is not that simple. It might require techniques and strategies involving human psychology knowledge and the ability to read verbal and body language while making the decisions.
Graffiti and Free Speech
The term free speech usually refer to person’s ability to express him self freely in different ways. The debates over the distinction between the “allowed” ways to express the freedom of speech has took various interpretation and recently reached the topic of graffiti. This paper explains why graffiti is a form of free speech and thus should be allowed; in addition it analyzes the impact that the graffiti has on the society in general.
The graffiti- or the street art is obliged to its world propagation mostly to hip-hop movement. Now the street art almost completely separated from the hip-hop, and exist as a detached form of expression. The greater the success the street artists achieve, the more attractive the wall for them as a media instrument, and large cities has observed a wide spread of this art form recently which has brought many controversies to this topic.
In developed society the emergence of alternative forms of culture is inevitable, and it is generated by the mere fact of social relations. The culture of any society should absorb and rethink subculture that leads to the enrichment and rejuvenation of the “main” culture. And once such processes exist, they are unavoidable, to prohibit or destroy this phenomenon is an impossible task, and thus it should be studied and understood instead.
The graffiti and the Law
The beauty of the graffiti arts are obvious and never been the subject of questioning. The aspect that brought the controversy is rather the legality of the places to express this art form. Most of the graffiti artists, who paint graffiti, see their purpose in the creation of properly beautiful images; as a result they prefer to create on so-called «legal walls”. Also they are unconfined by the time frame (i.e., they can sketch the whole day, and not only, let us say, in the pauses between the passing trains). Then it is all the matter of generalization, which mixes between someone who paints on someone else’s property improper words and artists who express in their paintings personal vision and public opinions on walls that are totally allowed to paint on.
There is no total freedom, and each activity must be limited with laws and rules for its own good. The denial of the graffiti will serve any good neither to the society nor to the freedom of speech. The rules which should address the limits for the graffiti should serve the artist them selves at the first place to distinguish between real form of arts and acts of vandalism that sometimes are mixed with graffiti.