Juries Should Be Abolished In The UK

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.

One reason why jury trials shouldn’t be an option is because jurors are incompetent. The cartoon of Document E isn’t just humorous, it’s also pretty true. Jurors are forced

Juries made up of everyday novices are the most relied upon people in the district and supreme courts when it comes to a criminal trial. Ultimately, 12 people will decide the fate of a defendant and either see them walk free or be incarcerated. What happens if they get it wrong? Although a wrongful convictions are unlikely in Australia they are usually down to police corruption, misreported evidence or a jury’s misinterpretation of the case. Untrained, average citizens are making massive decisions with barely any idea if they have followed the law or not. Personal feelings or experiences can affect the interpretation of the evidence. Also with a state like South Australia with smaller jury regions, the likely hood of know someone connected

If we let the courtrooms be televised to the public, they will start to lose faith in the court system if they do not like what they see. Citizens who watch the programs are most likely going to have a bias and will desire a final judgement that will go one way more than the other. A judge’s or jury’s verdict might cause mass hysteria which can have negative effects to a jury member’s personal life and the reputation of the justice done in Canada. The country will ridicule the judge even though they do not understand the law fully themselves and criticize the jury for unanimously voting for someone to be guilty or not guilty when the viewers want a differing response. The jury do not know everything going on outside of the court and what the media is saying therefore the nation might have an opposing opinion to them. Their faces will be plastered on television for anyone to see and for anyone to judge them. This will stress out an already uncomfortable jury. Alternatively, another result could be the jury being swayed by the public to select a certain decision instead of their own. As a

In conclusion we should keep the jury system just find a better way to question potential jurors. Citizens should have the right to serve in jury duty and decide whether a fellow citizen is guilty or innocent. This will give the citizens and their family a peace knowing that a criminal was proven guilty. Since the jury system has been intact for so long they should just make some minor changes. These minor changes would not only help the citizens but the community as

Juries allow and force the public to have a personal knowledge of court proceedings, protect against the bias of a single person, and provide the public with certainty that there is not corruption in our judicial system. No human system of justice is perfect, but I believe that what Benjamin Franklin said regarding the Constitution also applies to our jury system, “It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does” (Benjamin Franklin to the Federal Convention).

In the Australian legal system, juries have been the subject of debate for many years. Should we have them for criminal trials or will justice be done better through trial by judge alone?

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 current jury system in America is unfortunately corrupt because of unprofessional jurors that are the deciding factor for cases. The “jury of our peers” system does not promote fair justice and it should be replaced with a new system of professional jurors. The current system allows random, unqualified individuals to make irresponsible decisions for our government. If unqualified jurors were replaced with professional jurors, our system would become successful. A professional system of jurors is an efficient way for justice to be decided because the current system allows jurors to be uneducated on law, inconsistent with experience, and bias based on their opinions.

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

The Jury Selection Procedure in the English Legal System The theory behind modern day trial by jury can be traced back some

"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.