Comparative Observations of Inaccurate Decisions †MyAssignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about the Comparative Observations of Inaccurate Decisions. Answer: Introduction: The common meaning of margin of error refers to the amount which is acceptable in case inaccuracy or mistake or any change in conditions. In the context of law, the margin of error means the fact that panel of judges sometimes makes faults at the time of taking decisions whether the suspect is guilty or not. There are many faults which validates errors. This includes inadequate or ambiguous proof or there might be a failure of evidences or complexities in law (De Vos, 2017). It may be termed as the accuracy rate in the decisions made by the panel of judges. As per the above discussion, panel of judges made many mistakes at the time of decision making because of inadequate or ambiguous proofs that causes inaccurate decisions. 12 angry men is the good reference in which panel of judges believed in the witnesses given by the old man and the woman who lives nearby to the suspects place (De, Vos, 2017). Many panel of judges believes in the witnesses that were given without paying consideration to the other relevant facts of the case. Any person who is in the trial for the first time must know that judges are those who make decisions on their best judgements and after consideration of all the relevant facts of the case without being partial and prejudice towards suspect. Further even if they make faults then it must be due to misleading facts or incomplete information that were presented with respect to the case. The most relevant point that had caused the judges some amount of hesitation regarding the guilt of the suspect is when Juror 8 have been presented before the judge, the knife was exactly the same with which the blamed has been supposed to have murdered his father (Rose, 2016). Juror 8 said that he bought the knife from the junk shop near the boys place (Rose, 2016). He just wanted to convince that purchased knife was lost and that knife was found by the another person and murdered his father, thereby putting the blame on the accused. Juror 8 was initially disagreed with the 11 jurors and opinioned that suspected is not guilty. The other most important point which was addressed by the juror 8 was that old man is not capable to hear from the boy I will kill you when the train was passing. The reason is that 10 seconds are required for el to pass and the old man was required to take 6 seconds or more to go near the window. Before the old man can hear the boy by shouting I will kill you and the body to fall down, the el was passing through his window and it is difficult to hear what one is thinking (Gale, 2015). Any individual who is tangibly weak or mentally retarded to carry out the juror duties or has been witnessed to death or imprisonment for life was awarded. The person is subject to bond for exhibiting good behavior. Further the panel of judges must be unbiased or impartial or must be competent to understand the legitimate proceedings and other relevant facts with respect to the case. A judicial injury that comes without an agreement upon a decision even after an extended discussion is called as hung jury (Zucker, 2017). A hung jury fails to reach at the supermajority which is required to agree on a decision. All the judges must agree totally that the suspect is guilty and the court has proved suspect a guilty person without any suspicion. Further there is a hung jury, and all the jurors do not agree solidly on a decision then the case shall be tried before on a new jury. Selection of panel of judges are also equally important part of a trial procedure while making decisions (De Vos, 2017). Now in the modern period, the lawyers wish to have jurors who are acted in the clients favor. Another important factor that obstructs the selection of impartial juror is a media. Mostly jury members are not aware of the case for which they have been selected to determine. But media barely make it possible to find jurors who are not aware of the cases particularly in the high profile cases. References De Vos, W. L. (2017). The Jury Trial in Western Australia: Comparative Observations. Int'l Trade Bus. L. Rev., 20, 287. Rose, R. (2016). Twelve angry men. Bloomsbury Publishing. Gale, C. L. (2015). A Study Guide for Rose Reginald's Twelve Angry Men. Gale, Cengage Learning. Zucker, K. J. (2017). Hung Jury. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1-4.