what does the jury do in survivor? What is the point of the Jury?
824204
From now on, every person voted off of the island will be added to the jury. When it gets down to the last two people, the jury votes who they want to win the million dollars. So the same people that you are voting out are the ones deciding if you win or not. Hope that helps!
153009
A court system is mandated by the Jewish bible and therefore worked its way into much of civilization.\n\nAs I understand it the jury system is taken from one of the nordic countries and is a very recent development. Originally the judge played the part of the ejudicator, and still may if a jury trial is not selected.
1013260
Generally, to ensure that the verdict is unanimous, both parties have the right to poll the jury, although in some jurisdictions, polling of the jury in a civil case is discretionary with the trial court.\n\n A defendant does not, however, have the right to cross-examine the jurors on their verdict, and there is no right to a poll of the jury regarding their method of reaching a verdict.\n\nThe requirement that a verdict be returned by the jury in open court is necessary to afford the parties an opportunity to poll the jury if required.  Jurors must be given an opportunity in open court to express their agreement or disagreement with the verdict. The mere reliance on verdict slips signed in the juryroom is inadequate.\n \nThe proper method to ascertain whether the verdict reflects the intent of the jurors is by a request to have the jury polled. Polling of the jury is the process whereby the trial judge asks each juror after the verdict is announced whether it is his or her verdict. The purpose of polling the jury is to determine if the verdict signed by the foreman is that of the individual jurors and not one that has been coerced or caused by mistake.  Polling is a procedure designed to test the numerical validity of a verdict at the time it is rendered.\n \nThe trial court has the obligation of fully examining those jurors whose statements indicate possible dissent from the verdict. If the polling reveals that the number of votes is insufficient to sustain a verdict, the judge may, in his discretion, order the jury to redeliberate, declare a mistrial, or grant a new trial.\n \nThe poll of each member of the jury on the question of whether the verdict rendered is the verdict of each juror represents the extent to which the court may go in inquiring of the jurors as to the method of reaching their verdict.\n \nThere is authority to the effect that the court may, in a proper case, have the jury repolled. Absent an expression of uncertainty as to the verdict by one or more of the jurors, however, no abuse of discretion is committed by refusing to poll the jury a second time.
908548
started off rushed, and now i am rushing to get things done before 8 so i can see Survivor!!!\n\nI cnt wait to see your questions about the show!!!!!Of course I will answer the all!!!!!\n\n\n=)
862685
Okay, you want to have things to think about.\n\nWhat if last week instead of voting off Yul  the raro people had voted off one of the two girls from Aitu? There is a rub to the immunity idol, you have to bring it with you to the tribal counsil. Think about that. If yul has it on him, only Yul can use it. Jeff alluded to that tonight. Everyone knew Yul had the idol but nobody knew if he had given it to someone to hold that night. If he ever does then he too can be voted off. Tricky isn't it? So if raro had voted off one of the girls last week, Yul could have done nothing to stop them. That is why it was stupid of Yul to show anyone the idol. It was even stupider of jonathon not to realize that yul had just told him who to get voted off that night. Had Jonathon told Raro what was up instead of trying to be slick and persuade them to vote off one of the girls without telling them why then one of the girls would be gone and Raro could be picking off Aitu one by one until yul is all that is left. Then they could have pick which one of them goes out one week while yul goes out the next week. It was a complete act of stupidity that just seemed to work out in Yul's favor last week and this week as well. Everybody knows that Yul has the golden ticket so to speak to the final three. That means only two can go with him. one of them has got to be thinking they need to get that idol out of the game now. Jonathon has got to know that he is the odd man out even though he is the perfect guy to take with you to the finals. no body will give Jonathon the money. Still the girls both know that Ozzy is likey to beat them in challenges so they have to do something to get rid of either Ozzy or Yul. I know this won't happen . It is to bold to happen, but, it has to be said that Yul having that idol is a major distraction to the other people.\n\nBack to your complaints. I thought Parvati was the more annoying of the girls. She sounded like she was cracking. In fact I think she has cracked. That whole tirade about maturity sounded like a Pee Wee Herman skit. Jonathon came out smelling like arose, especially after she made a scene about eating the cocoanut. No wonder he didn't feel like sharing the fish. I thought it wrong but i thought it an eye for an eye as well.\n\nAnd you couldn't be more right about the immunity necklace. Adam could have given it to her. He could have voluteered for exile island. He could have done all kinds of things to show he cared for her. He didn't. All he tried to do is get Yul to vote off Jonathan. Now he will probably be snuggling with Parvati until he or she gets voted off next week. Expect Ozzie to try and get him out in the competition. \n\nThe way I see it the pecking order is Adam, Parvati, Jonathon or Ozzie, and then one of the girls or Ozzie.  Yul will try and make it to the final two and win but it could all backfire. You never know. Enjoy.
151339
to make a difference...and to get called in for jury duty! Ha!
508377
Grand jury is a big task, therefore work hard and read the following carefully:\n\nA jury is a sworn body of persons convened to render a rational, impartial verdict and a finding of fact on a legal question officially submitted to them, or to set a penalty or judgment in a jury trial of a court of law.\n\nIn most criminal justice systems which require a jury, panels are initially selected at random from the adult population of the district served by the court concerned. A person who is serving on (is a member of) a jury is known as a juror.\n\nThe requirements for a jury are fairly universal. The number of jurors must be a specified size (usually twelve or fifteen), and since there is always the possibility of jurors not completing the trial for health or other reasons, often some alternate jurors are nominated, who will also follow the trial (but do not take part in deciding the verdict), as a precaution in case a new juror is needed part way through the trial.\n\nServing on a jury is normally compulsory if a citizen is chosen (exceptions and exclusions vary between jurisdictions and are discussed below). Since a jury is intended to be an impartial panel capable of reaching a verdict, there are often procedures and requirements, for instance, fluent understanding of the language, or the ability to test jurors or otherwise exclude jurors who might be perceived as less than neutral or more partial to hear one side or the other.\n\nThe jurors hear the cases presented by both the defense and prosecution, and in some jurisdictions a summing-up from the judge. They then retire as a group to consider a verdict. The majority required for a verdict varies. In some countries their decision making process is private and may not be disclosed, in others it may be discussed but only after the trial has ended.\n\nIn common law countries such as the England and the United States, the role of the jury is the "finder of fact", while the Judge has the sole responsibility of interpreting the appropriate law and instructing the jury accordingly. Occasionally, a jury may find the defendant "not guilty" even though he violated the law if the jury thinks that the law is invalid or unjust. This is commonly referred to as jury nullification. When there is no jury ("bench trial"), the Judge makes factual rulings in addition to legal ones. In most continental European jurisdictions, the Judges have more power in a trial and the role and powers of a jury are often restricted.\n\nActual jury law and trial procedures differ between countries.\n\nThe concept of a modern jury trial stems back to Magna Carta, which gave English nobles and freemen the right to be tried by a panel of their peers, rather than by summary judgment of the king or other official who often had the utter power to impose his own arbitrary judgment. The concept can also be traced to Normandy before 1066, when a jury of nobles was established to decide land disputes. In this manner, the Duke, being the largest land owner, could not act as a judge in his own case. Many ancient cultures had similar concepts, notably ancient Judea whose panel of judges called the Sanhedrin served a similar purpose. The Athenians by 500 BCE had also invented the jury court, with votes by secret ballot. These courts were eventually granted the power to annul unconstitutional laws, thus introducing judicial review.\n\nSelection\nA common method for drafting jurors is to draw them at random from electoral rolls (known as allotment or sortition). The most common exclusions are for people whose job in some way precludes them (for instance, teachers, doctors, firefighters, people who themselves work in the criminal justice system), are caring for young children, have an interest in the case, are under the age of 18 years, or who have health problems or serious criminal records. In some jurisdictions in the United States, prior legal education or being a lawyer may also be a reason to
853951
Well, rogue jurors in the sense that they vote according to their beliefs?  There's not much the legal system can do.\n\nThe primary reason for having a jury of your peers, instead of some professional jurist, is that a jury can go beyond their instructions, although they are never told this.  A jury decides the verdict to make sure "justice" is served, not necessarily that the law was followed.  A jury can acquit because they believe the law is being unfairly applied, disagree with the law, or the defendent is being persecuted unfairly.  They can acquit if they believe defense evidence has been unfairly witheld from them.\n\nThe Libertarians have been pushing for the Fully Informed Jury Act for decades to make sure jurists are informed of these facts, but with little success.\n\nThis is also a good way to get out of a trial.  If you are being queried as to whether you will follow court instructions, you can say that you might not because of the reasons above.  You'll be excused no problem.\n\nIt's also called Jury Nullification.\n\nIn case you can't tell, I'm a big believer in Jury Nullification.  Oh if I were ever called to serve on a jury, odds are I'd follow the instructions, but I'd always keep those 3 questions in my mind.  Is the law being applied fairly?  Is the law fair?  Is justice being served?
208969
Jury trials vary based on state law.  In some states, a jury has to be twelve members.  Some other states like Arizona has smaller juries.  It could be as small as six members on a jury based on the crime that was committed.
1085339
From Wikipedia:\n\nEvery player receives a stipend for participating on Survivor depending on how long they last in the game. The known prizes for All-Stars are as follows: 2nd = $250,000; 3rd = $125,000; 4th = $100,000. In most seasons, the runner-up receives $100,000. Sonja Christopher, the first player voted off in Survivor's first season, received $2,500. [1] Tina Wesson, the first player voted off in Survivor: All-stars, received $25,000. The prizes in seasons with more than sixteen contestants are unknown.\n\nThe million-dollar winner also wins an automobile, as does the winner of a specific reward challenge in each season (excluding the first). All players also receive an additional $10,000 for their appearance on the reunion show.
280221
Hi,\nIf you mean what is there job then i can help. Juries in america and canada are chosen from a databank - usually a mailing list. They are asked to attend court and must do so. They are paid very little compensation, but it is a civic duty so, thats not a serious issue. Juries are charged with the duty of deciding ones fate after all the evidence is presented by the crown prosecutor/district attorney and defence lawyers. Juries have to decide beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual is guilty. Also, juries, in Canada, are not allowed to speak about the experience whereas jurors in the US are allowed to discuss the case in length. Juries are often sequestered, which means they cannot have contact with the public or there families (during the case) as the judicial process must be impartial and free from outside influence. Juries can consist of 6,8, or 12 depending on the state, but in Canada juries are often 12 members and the decision must be unanimous and if not, its called a "hung jury". Additionally, juries are made of lay people from the community hence, jury of your peers. Also, there is such a term called "jury nullification, which means that the jury doesn't like the law and feel for the accused they will decide based on there opinion and not the law. For example, see R v. Morgentaler 1985 (Canadian case on abortion). I am sure there is more, but i cannot recall. Ciao from Canada.
1014150
If you are just trolling for a "yes" or "no", my answer is “NO”.  \n\nIf you want more, I have included a personal experience for you to read through.  It is lengthy but when you are asked to kill a man, most issues become more complex.\n\nI spent just over six (6) months of my life sitting on a First Degree with Special Circumstances Murder case.  At the time we submitted our verdict it was the longest jury trial in California history.  During that time I came to some conclusions.\n\nA jury evaluates the evidence put before them.  As a juror I cannot investigate, conduct experiments or do any research.  So if an attorney can get the facts introduced into evidence, they are a good attorney.  There are all sorts of maneuvers and gyrations performed outside of the juries hearing.  Some of those maneuvers establish what a jury will be allowed to hear and see about the case.  The better attorney is the one who can successfully argue to include their evidence while excluding their opponents.  And make no mistake they are opponents.  Our judicial system is an adversarial system.  This is the primary reason juries sometimes return verdicts that the rest of us don’t understand.  The general public watches a defendant “tried” in the press, a jury doesn’t have that luxury.  The rules of evidence are different in Superior Court than they are in news media.\n\nThe only reason attorneys are allowed in a court room at all is so the jury can put witnesses answers into some kind of context.  For example, if the answer is "YES", no one can glean any information from that answer unless they know that the question was "ARE YOU STUPID?".  Then and only then can you assign meaning to the answer.\n\nA jury represents the community.  It is not a rubber stamp for the prosecutor.  Even though, in a similar way, the prosecutor also represents the community.\n\nA jury can select what testimony it believes, disbelieves, and it can go so far as to believe part of a witnesses testimony and not believe the rest.  As a juror you may also assign different values to testimony.  We heard from two doctors.  One worked with the victim for hours, the other only minutes.  The longer duration doctor’s testimony weighed more heavily in my verdict than did the short duration doctor.\n\nDepending on the jury you sit on (criminal or civil) you must be convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" or convinced by the "preponderance of the evidence" respectively.  Beyond a reasonable doubt sounds simple but if you have never searched your soul, you don't know what it means.  To me it means putting someone in a death chamber and being able to sleep with that decision.  It doesn’t mean he probably did it, he surely did, or he almost certainly did it.  The preponderance of the evidence is simply more than half.  At least that is my feeling at the moment.  I have never sat through a civil trial so I reserve the right to change my mind on this issue.  The Constitution states 'no man shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process'.  Beyond a reasonable doubt applies to life and liberty as well as property in the form of a fine.  The preponderance of the evidence applies to civil law, i.e. a monetary settlement.\n\nI jury doesn't decide guilt or innocence.  Their verdict is either "guilty" or "not guilty",  Guilty is obvious, the prosecutor has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime he or she has been charged with.  Not guilty is not a finding of innocent, it is a finding of "not guilty".  It means the prosecutor has failed to prove beyond a reasonable that the defendant is guilty.  Some places and some people can have a finding of “factually innocent”, but I’m certain exactly how that works.  I would assume the defendant proved beyond a reasonably doubt that someone else did it.  Keep in mind though, t
1021177
Trial by a jury of your peers is still the best justice system in the world, and we should definitely keep it.  Any system of laws is really just a tool.  It's a means to an end, and that end is Justice.  Now I think everyone would agree that Justice is an Ideal... it's a perfect concept, in theory.  But being humans, we are incapible of creating anything perfectly.  Therefore, the tool we have created as the means to reach that perfect ideal of Justice will, by necessity, be flawed.  So, our legal system will never be perfect, and consequently injustices will always come out of it from time to time.  But over the many years since it's inception, we continue to fine tune our legal system, with new legislation, with the appealate court process, with new amendements to the constitution, etc.  The law is constantly changing because, like technology, morality, and every other aspect of human culture, the law is a work in progress.  It will never be perfect, because we are never perfect.  But the trial system the best system humanity has ever devised to pursue the ideal of Justice.\n\n     But the trial by jury is the last line of defense between the people of our great nation remaining free, and the people of our once-great nation falling into a facist state.  It's that right to a trial by a jury of our peers that protects us from unjust laws, from the power which we vote to hand over to our elected public servants corrupting them and allowing them to turn us into the servants, instead.  The jury of your peers is what stands between the people and tyranny.\n\n    People in this country (unlike many others) are still innocent until PROVEN guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.  That "reasonable doubt" standard is very high.  We aren't innocent until it appears we're "probably" guilty, or even "more likely than not guilty."  That jury has to be pretty damn sure we're guilty, and they have to agree on it.  Sometimes in criminal trials someone's very life is on the line.  If it's your life, you have the right to cross-examine witness brought against you.  You have the right to question evidence brought against you.  You have the right to bring witnesses on your behalf, and to bring evidence of your innocence.  In other words, you have the right to plead your case and to try to convince that jury that you didn't do it.  \n\n     Never, ever, let anyone make you believe for a second that this great Republic of ours could pursue our ideal of Justice without the trial system.
307252
In countries where jury trials are common, juries are often seen as an important check against state power. Many also believe that a jury is likely to provide a more sympathetic hearing, or a fairer one, to a party who is not part of the government, or other establishment interest than would representatives of the state.\n\nIn the United States, because jury trials tend to be high profile, the general public tends to overestimate the frequency of jury trials; the vast majority of cases are in fact settled by plea bargain which removes the need for a jury trial.
810295
I think they typically use voters registration rolls as their pool for jury duty. Some states use voters registration cards as well as drivers license. The optimum system to generate a jury pool would be a totally non-bias system, which neither of these provide, but it is the best we have.\nHope this helps.\n\nI did a little research on Louisiana and I found that in at least two parishes (sp?) The names of all licensed drivers and registered voters of St. Martin Parish are placed into the Clerk of Court computer once a year.  The computer first eliminates duplicate names, and then uses random selection to select the names of people who will receive a subpoena for jury duty.
572991
Is this the standard number of jurors (12) throughout the US? If so it's illogical - better odd numbers (11,13) then even to get a verdict.
270575
Judges typically are there to ensure that all rules of the court are followed – most importantly, the Rules of Evidence.  Judges can rule on whether certain evidences are admissible (to be presented to the jury), as well as ruling on any motions either side would make.  Judges would also answer any questions from the jurors when they are deliberating.  If a defendant chooses to have a “bench” trial, the judge also serves as the jury (fact finder) as well.  The judge would also give sentences to convicted defendants according to the rules.