The Right to a Trial by Jury

"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.

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 As a result of changes in society since, the system must be seen as potentially outdated.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

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

We should not have a professional jury system because it simply doesn't work for our government system. If we were to have a professional jury system, jurors would be biased, lazy and experiences with past cases would interfere. Although there would be different jurors with different histories on a panel, Jurors would be biased because they would all have the same education telling them what is right and wrong. The same textbook would be deciding whether a person is guilty, or not guilty. Another circumstance where a juror would be biased is race. If a white male were to be convicting and black male, it could easily fly under the radar that the white male juror is holding a grudge. Many black males and minorities would be discriminated against

During jury selection, potential jurors are interviewed then chosen or eliminated from the jury. The initial selection of potential jurors is completely random; citizens get “jury Duty” notices on a random basis. The screening of the jury selection is conducted by both the prosecution and the defense, and is overviewed by the judge on the case. During the interview, citizens are asked a number of strategic questions to ensure that they are not in any way bias for or against the defendant or case. The questions also eliminate those who have any connection to the case, in any way. It is during this interview that the lawyers on the case can voice their concerns regarding biased jurors.

trials by jury is one of the foundations of the American way. Under the Articles of

The major upside to having professional jurors is that they would be more likely to deliver good verdicts. In our current system, people are asked to understand the law without any training. They are given brief instructions by judges after a very long trial and then expected to apply complex laws. We should not expect jurors to understand those laws based on one short lecture from a judge. Therefore, having professional jurors would give us better verdicts more clearly based on the law. On the other hand, the bad part of this is the loss of citizen contribution. Jury trials exist so that common people can have an influence on the legal system. Our Founding Fathers did not want Americans to be tried and judged by legal privileged who

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

This amendment was introduced after the Bruce Burrell case (2005) where, after two weeks of deliberations, all jurors were firmly in favor of one verdict except for one who was firmly against the majority verdict. The case illustrated the vulnerabilities of the previous jury system in creating a time and cost ineffective measure of trialing defendants where justice was not necessarily achieved. Another recent reform is the passing of legislation in 2006 which provided three additional ‘spare’ jurors to be empanelled on lengthy criminal trials for example in the case R v. Wood. These recent reforms in legislation have led to the jury system being more cost and time effective in the criminal trial. Allowing a majority vote instead of strict unanimous verdict reduces the risk of a hung jury and hence prevents jury bribing and jury disagreements. By avoiding a retrial, the criminal trial process saves huge amounts of time and money for all individuals involved and hence maintains the integrity of the jury system. Equally, allowing spare jurors in lengthy trials is hugely cost and time effective as retrials are often avoided in the case where there is misconduct amongst the jurors.

In the Canadian Charters of Rights and Freedoms (1982) under section 11, it is stated that a person that has been charged with a criminal offence, has the right to a trial by jury. For many years jury trials have been under constant criticism in regards to the jury’s inability to adequately perform the responsibilities entrusted to them. Many studies have been performed looking into the jury selection process, jury bias, pre-trial publicity exposure and attitudes/personality of a juror, in order to increase the jury’s abilities to perform their responsibilities to present a fair trial. In the case People v. Weatherton (2014), the inappropriate behaviour of a jury member lead to a legal dispute regarding the final verdict. This behaviour lead to a lengthy investigation with the final decision, made by the Supreme Court of California, to reverse the guilty verdict. As a member of the jury, it is important to understand the responsibilities one must uphold while deciding whether a person is guilty or not guilty.

Since the jury is a group of twelve people, it is safe to assume that they will come from different backgrounds, educational levels, religions, and ethnic groups. This does not mean that all diverse groups will be represented, but it is enough to offer diverse perspectives. This variety helps to eliminate any undue prejudice or bias that could be present in either a small group or single individual. Because these people have no association with anyone involved in the trial, they have no personal or financial reason to be biased. They will not be personally impacted by the outcome of the trials. This should result in an unbiased decision by the jury. A positive side effect of the jury system is that it affords the jurors a basic knowledge and education of the judicial system. Other than voting, it is the jury system that provides the most citizens an opportunity to be involved in government. Although we can learn about the judicial process in books, the experience of being a part of the system by participating on a jury is a more meaningful way of understanding the

Juries are one of the most important facets of the democratic process, so preserving them would guarantee the continued existence of democracy in America. Additionally, preserving the jury system would help ensure an adherence to traditional American legal values and principles (Law Teacher, 2016). Preserving the jury system would also ensure that every citizen maintains their right to bring large corporations to justice and to fight for themselves (Faxon Law Group, 2016). Moreover, having a jury leads to a more fair trial, because the opinion of the jury is much less likely to be biased than that of a single judge (Sacks, 1965). One of the most important issues facing this generation is how to preserve the civil jury system for the ones to come.

Frank, M. (2011). Challenging Peremptories: Suggested Reforms to the Jury Selection Process Using Minnesota as a Case Study. In review.law.umm.edu. Retrieved November 29, 2014, from http://review.law.umn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Frank_MLR.pdf

This essay will be looking at the advantages and disadvantages of the jury trial. Jury trial is a legal proceeding where a jury makes a decision, which then direct the actions of a judge. The members of a jury are a group of independent citizens. They have no interest in the case before them, nor is their judgment coloured by regular experience of the business of the court. They are “twelve individuals, often with no prior contact with the courts, who are chosen at random to listen to evidence and decide upon matters affecting the reputation and liberty of those charged with criminal offences.” The jury has always been drawn from sections of society but has been made democratic only in the last half century. And now almost all citizen of the United Kingdom are eligible to serve on a jury. But the percentage of criminal cases actually tried by jury is surprisingly low. Nowadays “the magistrates’ courts deal with at least 95 per cent of criminal cases. In practice juries determine the outcome of less than 1 per cent of the total of the criminal cases.” But still the idea of trial by jury has always been seen as a “cornerstone of the English legal system” , and it remains the standard mode of trial for dealing with the most serious types of criminal case. But even though it is established and been in practice for years, people seem to believe that there are disadvantages to jury trails. Nonetheless, the jury system is becoming increasingly controversial. Critics claim that