Does The Jury System Have The Importance We Invest Into It?

Juries in NSW The jury system plays a very important part in the running of the courts. The jury system is needed in both criminal and civil cases. There are advantages of the jury system as well as disadvantages.

Juries exists in the criminal trial to listen to the case presented to them and, as a third, non-bias party, decide beyond reasonable doubt if the accused is guilty. For the use of a trial by juror to be effective, no bias should exists in the jurors judgments, the jurors should understand clearly their role and key legal terms, and the jury system should represent the communities standards and views whilst upholding the rights of the accused and society and remain cost and time effective.

In the book, Twelve Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, the reader gets a demonstration of the jury system, with all its flaws and its positives. In this informal essay, I will show some of the positives and negatives of the jury system. After this analysis, you will see that the jury system is flawed, due to people like Juror 7. Juror 7’s attitude and beliefs are a prime example of how the jury system can have negative consequences.

There are certain aspects of the United States’ government that seem to be at the core of ensuring democracy for all citizens. These ideas include representative leaders like the President, or the bicameral legislature. Similarly, the jury system is another structure of the government that many people hold close to their hearts. Although it seems like the ultimate way that the citizens can self-govern, is the jury system really the best way to reach a verdict in civil and/or criminal cases? The bottom line is that the jury system is an outdated structure. Specifically, bench trials, or trials decided only by a judge, are much more effective than jury trials because judges are more educated, less susceptible to popular influence, and are not

Juries specifically in the United States serve a very large political significance. Majority of the time they determine the fate of those on trial. Juries are used to protect the rights of the people and work hand in hand with the judge to determine the outcome of cases to the best of their ability. Working hand in hand means the Judge determines what laws are applied to each specific case, while the jury works to decide on the facts. Jurors are held to a high degree due to the fact they must focus on fact, remain impartial, and be honest. Very much power is given to juries in the court of law which in turn shows that large political significance juries hold. While juries hold a large significance politically, one of arguably their strongest weapons is the use of jury nullification. Jury nullification refers to right of juries to nullify, or refuse to apply law in criminal cases despite facts that support a finding that the law was violated. It is an extremely powerful component of law because a defendant could have all the facts and evidence pointing to their guilt, but if the jury feels a certain way about a law or situation, then they have the right to pass on all the facts presented and acquit a defendant that in most cases would be found guilty. Also they could use if they found a specific law being applied to the defendant as an unjust law or the way a law is applied. But largely in the past, specifically during the Jim Crow era, it was used as a way to acquit those

Juries have been utilized in the system of law and order for more than 1000 years. Their original purpose was to provide local insight and information that acted more as a witness rather than final decisions. By the late 15th Century, the jury system had been recognized as an important faction in the legal system and had become independent as it matured from simple witness to decider of fact. Consequently, the jury system became undeniably important following the Revolutionary War. The right to trial by jury was symbolic in the sense that it represented the overthrown power of the king.

This being said, trials involving jury’s makeup an extremely small amount of court cases in Australia. Most cases of a criminal nature are heard Summarily in the Magistrates court before being given the opportunity to a trial by jury.

Many professionals and legal experts such as Sir Oliver Popplewell and Sir Louis Blom-Cooper argue against the archaic system of juries and their futility in the legal system, with Auberon Waugh stating that: 'we know as a nation that we are no longer fit for jury service'. There are four main arguments for the abolition of juries: people lack the expertise to reliably assess the evidence, certain jury members may dominate the jury with people’s personalities and emotions influencing the verdict, the internet is now corrupting the system, and the exorbitant costs of the jury. Without a doubt, there is the problem of jury tampering, however this is exists very rarely, and is usually identified. Therefore,

There are two very strong opinions towards jurors here in the United States. The first group have the people who believe that jury nullification is vital to our legal system to allow the average American to have their voice heard through the legal system, like Americans did with Prohibition. I would call this side the John Adams side of the debate, putting faith within our legal system and citizens. Adams once said that jurors are obligated to vote grounded on their “own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” This is a country for the people and by the people and for that to be true, jury nullification is needed especially when America has a history of using courtrooms as a social issue playground. Many people would find this side favorable because it aligns with many different moral theories.

Justice Evatt delivered a paper to the Australian Legal Convention which entitled “The Jury System in Australia” in 1936 . Justice Evatt’s thesis of Jury trials was that “in modern day society the jury system is regarded as an essential feature of real democracy”. Jury trials in the nineteenth century were found way before in four colonies Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia . When Trial by Judge alone was first introduced in South Australian thirty eight were held in the Supreme Court between 1989 and 1993, meaning all annual percentage of all criminal trials in the court ranged between 3.9% and 8.9% . The Juries Act SA 1927 was amended many times making some major changes. In 1966, women were introduced in the South Australian Jury system as only men were capable of serving on Juries. An increase to the number of jurors available to contribute in a criminal trial was amended in 2004 . It now states in the Juries Act 1927 under section 6A that if court agrees there are good reasons to add additional jurors of 2 or 3 it can be empanelled for a criminal trial .

In a trial by jury, the judge and jury hear the case. The way in which juries are and operate is governed by the Jury Act 1977 (NSW). The adversarial system ensured that just outcomes would be achieved within the jury system through the Jury Amendment Act 2006 (NSW) as this changed the juries verdict from unanimous to majority. Despite there being arguments that suggest majority verdicts compromise the standard of proof ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, in that there is one juror who had doubt, the jury system ultimately achieves just outcomes for all parties involved as to date there have been no reported cases of injustices occurring as a result of it. These beliefs are reflected through the “Independent Juries” (SMH, 2001) as this article said that most jurors are able to understand the duty that they must perform and also that there should be no doubt that the media may influence the juries decision.

The jury is seen as the ultimate protection of the people against potentially oppressive power of the state. Randomly selected jurors are actively involved in the administration of justice after an agent of the state has made a criminal allegation against an individual. The reasons for a jury verdict are intentionally kept secret by law and because this is done here is very little public scrutiny of the effectiveness of the jury system. The reason I believe that juries should be compelled to give reasons for their verdicts is that a person who is about to lose their freedoms from a jury conviction should be entitles to know the reason to be sure the verdict was based on law and sound logic. An accused person could have

The current jury system is based on an almost millennium-old principle found in the Magna Carta (1215). As a result of changes in society since, the system must be seen as potentially outdated. In other words, it may not satisfy the needs of modern society, judged by what the major stakeholders of the criminal justice system expect. Indeed, there are substantial flaws in current jury systems in terms of effectiveness. The two major concerns with jury systems are their representativeness and their levels of competence. The representativeness of juries is essential as their reason for existing is to represent the views of society. Having twelve jurors could be understood to ensure representativeness and eliminate room for bias. However, this does not remove the possibility of juries being biased towards parties. Even if the potential jurors contacted are representative in terms of gender, ethnicity, age and socioeconomic status and though jury duty is a compulsory engagement, 90% of Queenslanders opt out of it. This makes it very likely that juries will not be representative. One example is ethnic diversity. There is likely to be less ethnic diversity in courts because ethnic minorities might not have sufficient language ability or access to interpreters to be jurors. Another example is age. It is likely that retired people

"Today, jurors sometimes leave courtrooms in tears after convicting people they believed were morally (if not legally) innocent, or after witnessing the harsh sentences handed down by judges at the sentencing phase of seemingly minor cases. That is exactly the sort of travesty trial by jury was intended to prevent. If the law were just and justly applied, jurors would have no reason to regret their verdicts, or the sentences that are meted out later by judges." (Trial by Jury Website) This would seemingly encourage the American judicial system to adapt the jury system to meet the needs of our current American society. It is unpleasant for the jurors to make very hard choices concerning the lives of other fellow citizens. It is also hard for the persons who are standing trial to know that their fate is going to rest with people with little or no knowledge of the law.

The jury system of a trial is an essential element of the democratic process. It attempts to secure fairness in the justice system. Traditionally, the jury system has been viewed as a cornerstone of common law procedure. However, the use of the system of trial by jury is on the decline. Today, its use differs, depending on whether (a) it is a civil or criminal matter, and (b) in criminal matters, whether it is a summary or an indictable offence.