The Jury System

The world’s trials usually are decided by the Jury and magistrate or judges system. As it is the expectation of many people, the jury system ought to be an efficient democratic instrument. The jury system is supposed to advocate for the needs of the public. This system is expected to be ruled by the people through the elected representatives and thus putting the needs of the people before themselves. However, for many years, this has not been the case. The current Jury system seems to have many disadvantages to the public than advantages. Due to this, the cons have way far outweighed the merits that they are supposed to be associated.

Jury trials

A jury trial being a legal proceeding in which the Jury either possess decisions or makes factual findings ought to be a democratic instrument. Martin says that “the reason as to why the jury system is supposed to be an efficient democratic tool is because their results are essential in directing the decisions that are going to be made by the Judge” 2. The Jury trial is different from a bench trial in which a judge or a group of magistrates are responsible for making all decisions.

[1]Malsch. M, Democracy in the courts: lay participation in European criminal justice systems (Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2013)

 2Martin J, Aqa Law For As Sixth Edition (Hodder Education 2015)

Disadvantages of Jury trials

There are many disadvantages attached to the Jury systems as compared to the advantages. A jury trial happens not always to produce the most efficient outcomes in all the cases which have been undertaken in the system.  One major problem with the Jury system is that the people under the Jury system o not always have a legal background. In some circumstances, they happen not to have an explicit understanding of complex legal documents or arguments and in other terms an in-depth forensic knowledge and evidence. Most of them hold the positions through corrupt means and thus defying democracy that the public yearns to have. When these kinds of jurors hold their positions through illegal means, soon or later they apply the same and start getting involved in a lot of corrupt deals. Because of this, the current jury systems both in U.S and around the world are not trusted by the public.

Another disadvantage with Jury system is that each and every Juror has the possibility of having their personal biases. In turn, these biases lead to affected decisions made regarding a case. At many times, innocent individuals have fallen prey of heavy penalties under the Jury trials in offenses that they did not commit. Also, some people committed serious crimes, but the Jury Systems released them believing that they are not guilty.

The minority categories of people are the ones who are more disadvantaged under a trial that involves a Jury. It happens to be so because in a trial, the majority of jurors are likely to have different views of this particular minority group. There is a possibility that if a trial consists of a defendant belonging to a minority group, the persecution will eventually be out of their favor. Many Jury systems do not have retrials. Retrials can only consider in the events of serious crimes. There exist no enquiries allowed into the Jury deliberations after a verdict. It happens even in an instance where a juror alleges biases of any kind or other types of wrongful deeds.

Another disadvantage is that the jury vetting is against the principle of random selection as recently seen in many jury systems. The majority of the Jurors defy the will of the democratically elected legislature. It will be hard to act as role models and praise the importance of democracy while the jurors themselves do not participate. The jurors themselves are supposed to allow legislatures to be elected democratically by the vote of each and every member of the council. Without accepting the principle of random selection, the Jury system will live on a lie and continue to live on a corroded platform. Also, the laws of the Jury secrecy have the ability to allow the innocent individuals to remain convicted instead of making reasonable enquiries into how they obtained the verdict. It should not be the case, and instead, every action taken by the council is supposed to effectively communicated to each and every one of them. The deeds and layouts followed ought to be clear and abide by the constitution of a nation.

Advantages of a Jury trial

Despite that most of the current the current jury system is not an efficient democratic instrument, still it has some advantages. The view that people have of trials by either a jury or magistrate is very distinct trial experiences. Each one of them has got its own merits and demerits. It is the belief of the majority that appearing in front of a Jury is better and has an advantage of a fair trial. The view that has come into many people’s minds when a Jury is trying them is that fellow peers are trying them. It is on the contrary with a trial that is being carried out by a single magistrate or a judge. According to them, the Judge or magistrate may not be in a position to associate an individual’s case with their personal circumstances.

On the other hand, a jury system allows the decision regarding a trial to be made by a group of people and not a single individual. The aspect of having many people trying an individual has some reassurance for the defendant. It usually applies to a serious offense that calls for very severe potential penalties. In such a circumstance, all the Juries have to an agreement whether a defendant is a guilt or not guilty. However, other conditions call voting to be done, and the majority is approved to be the solution.

Conclusion

As many could say theoretically, the jury system is supposed to be an efficient democratic instrument to its people. In many parts around the globe, this has not always been the case. The juror systems seem to have been bred on corruption and thus leading to an ineffective juror systems. Most of the positions that are held by the jurors not legally held but instead they are illegally held. These issues pertaining illegitimacy are the primary causes of the many disadvantages found in the juror system today. However, not everything bad is to be associated with the jury systems; there are also some useful things reaped out of these systems. It is quite evident that decisions made by a group of people brainstorming together can be way above a decision that is made by an individual. Therefore, a juror system can work best with very complicated issues. Despite the many disadvantages that the system has, a lot can be done and change the Jury system’s perception to positive.

Bibliography

Malsch. M, Democracy in the courts: lay participation in European criminal justice systems (Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2013)

Martin J, Aqa Law For As Sixth Edition (Hodder Education 2015)

Rivlin G, Understanding The Law (Oxford University Press 2012)

Vollans T and Asquith G, English Legal System (Oxford University Press 2011)