The Jury System Should Be Scrapped For Criminal Trials

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.

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 As a result of changes in society since, the system must be seen as potentially outdated.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

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

The role of the jury in criminal

Miscarriage of justice is not just framed around contaminated evidence but also by the fact that juries misinterpret information and instructions which result in an incorrect verdict. Voting for the verdict previously had to be unanimous until 2006, when the Juries (Amendment) Act 2006 (NSW). Although majority verdict allows for quicker and easier verdicts, less pressure to conform and eliminates a rogue juror, there has been much criticism as the point of the trial to prove standard of proof that the accused

Juries are a crucial and irreplaceable part of the American justice system. The jury system has been around for hundreds of years. Our founding fathers viewed jury service as a critical part of democracy and self government. Twelve ordinary citizens make up the jury and will form a decision about the case. The jury system is still needed in the twenty-first century because it ensures the accused gets a fair trial and it promotes civic participation.

Trial by jury can be traced back to the 12th Century and has been an integral part of the criminal justice system since Henry II favoured it over trial by ordeal (Davies, Croall and Tyrer 2010, p.311). Although they are used in both crown court trials and civil cases, the introduction of the Administration of Justice Act 1933 has reduced the use of juries in civil cases significantly (Joyce 2013, p.208). However, they are only used in about one third of cases in the Crown Court (Huxley-Binns and Martin, p.220). Since the 19th Century, the statutory provisions for jury service have been amended and revised considerably resulting in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Throughout this essay I will be firstly discussing who is eligible to sit on a

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.

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

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.

A jury is a certain number of men or women, selected by law, grouped together to decide the verdict of a case. (“What is JURY?”) They play an important role in our system of justice. In the United State a jury hears testimony and evidence of the case to determine if that is enough to move forward. Over the years the jury system has evolved immensely and has improved. Roles have become different, some roles in the jury system have been discontinued and others have been added.

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 .

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.

Juries provide a public opinion which helps show what the public would think about the case and weather the accused is guilty or not guilty.

The right to a trial by jury is a core element of the United States Criminal Justice System. This right is guaranteed to all citizens by the highest law of the land: The United States Constitution. But are juries truly an effective means of securing justice? The movie 12 Angry Men provides commentary on this question with its portrayal of twelve jurors deliberating over a murder case. The jury initially seems bound to condemn the defendant, a young man of nineteen years, to the electric chair, but a single man, Juror no. 8 descents against the majority. Over the course of the film, tensions rise, and after much debate Juror no. 8 manages to convince the other eleven jurors to eventually vote not guilty. Through their debates and casual side conversations, we are shown the role of personal biases and group manipulation tactics that can impede with objective analysis and ultimately the attainment of justice. Thus, the Movie 12 Angry Men mostly serves to challenge the jury system as a means of securing justice by demonstrating the harmful effects of personal biases, the lack of dedication to the system, and the potential for manipulative tactics.