The jury can be considered as a fundamental part of the legal system in many countries across the world, as it plays a vital role in ensuring that the criminal justice system works for the benefit of the public rather than just for unjust leaders. It promotes a healthy criminal justice system for society, preventing political leaders from abusing the criminal justice system from effectively silencing their opponents.
The main role of the jury is to weigh up the evidence presented to them by the judge and decide the true facts of the case, to reach a final verdict. In criminal cases, it is then the role of the judge to decide on the appropriate sentencing, whereas in civil cases, the function of juries is to decide on how much money should be awarded in damages.
The purpose of our existing legal system is to enable all citizens to gain access to equal rights, and this is the principle the courts are attempting to support. Yet the refusal to conduct trials by jury contradicts this golden rule.
It is clear that the jury framework must be protected no matter what. If it is to be safeguarded, it should be because it is essential to human liberty, individual dignity and a free society. If political freedom and a stable society are valued, then it is important that there is a system of justice in which the public has willingness to trust in. These fundamental rights exist in the form of trials, in which the individual finds justice, or fails in finding justice. The way that twelve of his peers participate in the decision of his fate, as a crucial part of the legal procedure, means that the administration of justice is brought close to the people, by being decided by a representative group from the community. Society is not ready to accept a doubtful decision made by a singular professional or a panel of experts, instead, prepared to acknowledge the decision originating from their own community. The jury is an effective means of bringing the entire power of the citizenry to bear upon the daily administration of justice.
Additionally, the jury is a method of bringing adaptability and flexibility into the court. The judge must be impartial, impersonal, and regulate the law as he finds it. Before, jury decisions have been scrutinised by the affirmation that it doesn’t apply the law, yet is rather influenced by the emotional offer of a specific case. However, the very fact that the jury is so emotionally swayed is one of its highlights, in that these are twelve members of the jury who must respond to each other and to their own consciences. Juries have a tendency to be easier audiences, whilst judges have a tendency to decide based on legal nuances and subtler understandings of the law than would occur to the average juror.
The jury serves as an effective schooling in a democracy. Jury administration can be seen as a method for guaranteeing that society is included in the organisation of equity, and that common citizens under the authority of the law are well protected by the overwhelming power of the state, allowing freedom to make legal decisions and participate in the constitution. Juries are democracy in action daily, not just once every four years. There is no other part of the constitution so open to public discussion, where ordinary members of society participate in decisions of such immediate importance and wield real power, responsible for settling the fates of their fellow citizens, and determining by their verdicts whether or not defendants are guilty of the most serious crimes.
The judge’s job in choosing the course of justice is not the occupation of an expert, nor an individual, but one that requires group judgement. It is impossible to deal with absolute realities on a human level, in the everyday conduct of human life, in which everything in between must be dealt with. No human being can, or has the right, to judge with any degree of certainty of the right or wrong of any individual. Jury trials, through group judgement, help the criminal justice system to reflect the values of the general public, and contribute to our success as a democracy. The defendant is entitled to hear the verdict of his comrades, regardless of the outcome, in which he has the right to be certain that is a fair decision. Not on the grounds that a judge, or a panel of judges, said as much, or on the grounds that some expert in the science of the mind said so. But because twelve of his peers said so.
There have been increasing doubts surrounding the jury and the role they play in our legal system, especially in light of recent legal progressions.
Despite the failings of individual jurors, jurors deliver the right verdict most of the time, based on evidence. Of course, they are not infallible every time. How could they be? No humans are, not even judges, but relatively, juries come to the right decision most instances. A recent report from the Ministry of Justice, as a culmination of 18 months of meticulous research into over half a million legal cases heard in England and Wales, prove that juries are fair, efficient and effective. They convict almost two-thirds of those they try, they convict more than they acquit in rape cases, they do not exhibit any outward racial bias and only fail to reach conclusive verdicts in less than 1% of cases. Overwhelming, major miscarriages of justice in history have been due to failures in other parts of the legal system – by police, experts, witnesses, scientists or lawyers. if the evidence initially put before the jury is flawed, because it is tainted by impropriety, wrongly interpreted, inaccurate or incomplete, then a flawed verdict will be returned, not at the fault of the jury.
Juries bring with them the freshness and new insights of those who are new to the system and have not yet become case-hardened and cynical as most judges are. If juries are not cynical, neither are they naive, and rarely are there cases where juries cannot detect where the truth lies. Yes, random members of the public who constitute the jury may be more ignorant and uneducated about the law than professionally trained judges, but they don’t have the responsibility of deciding the sentencing, just the verdict in criminal cases. If needed, the magistrate or judge can then challenge their decision and overturn it in some cases.
Although juries have come under heavy criticism in the past for being biased and unrepresentative of minority groups within population, they are effective at reducing the chance that a mistake of fact will be made. It is highly unlikely for all 12 members of the jury to be wrong, although it may be the case that one or two individuals on the jury will be. Those who argue for trial by judge will have to accept that although some members of the jury may make mistakes, judges make mistakes too and are not infallible. But what if the judge makes a mistake of fact, a mistake that only a minority of the jurors would have believed? There is no remedy for that type of mistake.
In this age of mass media, where the public’s perception of our existing legal system is majorly skewed by the influence of news headlines and popular television series, it is becoming more important than ever to make sure that our citizens have the correct perception about the effectiveness and the way in which our legal system works. Misleading impressions of how the legal system works can corrode society’s faith in the system. By bringing ordinary citizens into the legal process and giving them the freedom and experience of making decisions, the criminal justice system is exposed to their scrutiny.
Although the function of juries is a significant one in the criminal justice system, they deal wth only a tiny portion of all cases, which still equates to approximately 30,000 cases annually. The other 95% are in the responsibility of the magistrate. This means that if a perversion of justice were to occur, it wouldn’t be on a massive scale.
The effort to take the courts of justices out of the hands of popular will is in effect, a direct attack upon the fundamental freedom all individuals are entitled to. If freedom is to preserved at any cost, then we need to recognise the importance in preserving the institution which administers freedom. If we need to be concerned with the people’s liberty, then we need to keep that liberty in the hands of the people.