Juries mostly sit in the Crown Court; if a defendant pleads not guilty, he will be tried by a judge sitting with 12 jurors. Due to numerous cases of jury misconduct being brought to light, serious questions about jury trials are being augmented. To an extent, this is compromising people’s confidence in the jury system. Jury misconduct can be explained as an infringement of the law of the court by a member of the jury, either while a court case is underway or after a verdict is out.
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Critics try to counter by saying that jury nullification is a bad method because juries are not experienced and trained as police and prosecutor are. The thing is though juries are useful exactly because they are not trained to know the law. They are a common sense point of view because they are not affected by restricting law. Such a common sense point of view is necessary to properly balance the rule of law with the fair application of justice—because a purely legal approach made by lawyers and judges can often result in harsh results. That is why it is important to have another party whose views can be different from judges and lawyers to have the power to counter the wrongness made by them.
"Jury System; a system in which the verdict in a legal case is decided by a jury on the basis of evidence submitted to it in court. " Starting at eighteen, you become eligible for jury duty – something many have to do as one of our civic duties, however, it wasn 't always this way. As far as historians know, the jury was established by William the Conqueror who brought it to England from Normandy. However, this system that he brought was nothing more than a system that had witnesses who knew of the matter in question to tell the court what they knew. It 's a known fact that our courts and laws have changed and evolved since when we first created them, otherwise lynching and stoning would still be acceptable punishments for varying crimes.
The concept of the jury system was founded by the Norman following the Conquest. However, its early functions were not associated with the administration of justice. In England, early jurors were individuals compelled to take an oath, acting as witnesses providing sources of information for administrative purposes; to be used in what Devlin phrased an “inquest” as the King saw that there could be “no better way of getting at the facts” .
In most of the English colonies including the United States, adopted the English common law system, one of these laws is “been trial by a jury” which include the number of members, they play an important role on every trial as they do now. The first one to implement the ”juries” was the king of England Ethelred who has been credited with the formation of local investigations that include twelve members. The King made many provisions to the code of law including a letter with a law code named “Tantage” in 997 this letter is considered to be the beginning of jury’s formation, on this he stated: “That there shall bean assemble in every meting place and in that assembly shall go forth the twelve eldest thegns and the reeve along with them, and
As I walk into the room filled with, “A jury of my peers”, I begin to question how fair or how biased we will all be. I am always one to question the system, but I know that I cannot do anything about the system itself, so I have to just go along with it, and follow the crowd. I guess my need to question everything is what I bring to the table of the jury room, although I may not have the courage to voice my opinions. I am sad to say that being on a jury is not a job that suits me well. I am not in any way patient, and I genuinely hate confrontation.
Juries have been around for over one thousand years. “The jury system originated in Normandy and was brought to England by William the Conqueror in 1066” (Judiciary). The jury system back then was more like a group of witnesses telling the court what they knew about the case at hand. When England was introduced to the jury system, “the king reserved it for his use only” (Judiciary). “The jury would provide the king with evidence; and he would in turn make the verdict” (Judiciary).
areas in sociology and if this work is pushed to the forefront in legal sociology, it will be less for the sound knowledge it can offer than for the opportunity it presents to apply sophisticated research technique. [ Selznick, 1959. 119-120]. Close examination even of the products of the jury studies reveals that far less was achieved than had been anticipated and planned. The Kalven-Zeisel study of the American Jury is, of course, the centerpiece of the effort, and it exemplifies the division of labor between social scientists and legal scholars that Selznick described for the second stage[ Kalven Harry, H. Z.
(3.) Juries work well because of the fact that juries are one of the most democratic aspects of the constitution; they are democracy in action every day of the week, not just once every four or five years. There is no other part of the constitution that is so open to the public, where ordinary people participate in decisions of such immediate importance and wield real power. There are jurors settling the fates of their fellow citizens in crown courts up and down the country every day of the week, determining by their verdicts whether or not defendants are guilty of the most serious crimes of violence and dishonesty such as murder, rape, robbery
It is generally the responsibility of the judge to keep the jury informed about what is the relevant law while It is the role of the jury to assess the evidence and determine the truth behind the case. The jury then has to reach a verdict, after applying the relevant law to the facts of the case. In a criminal case, while the jury may give a verdict of guilt, it is the judge who decides upon appropriate sentences. On the other hand, in civil cases the jury decides on the amount of monetary compensation awarded in damages. The jury is only permitted to appraise evidence that has been brought to light in court itself; it is not authorised to consider evidence in the jury room that, prior, has not been introduced to court.
Juries are an intrinsic part of Queensland’s legal system as they protect and reinforce society’s views most importantly presumption of innocence. The fairly recent Criminal Code and Another Act Amendment Act 2008 has seen the introduction of judge only trials which has, although complicating the system, considerably improved the right of the accused to a fair trial. Although, as quoted by Justice Dean, juries were “administered in criminal cases as a protection against the tyranny of arbitrary punishment...” this amendment was implemented to protect the accused’s right to presumption of innocence without eroding their constitutional right to a jury which it has successfully achieved.
One issue investigated has been if there a functional difference between 6- and 12-member juries. Benefits of smaller juries include more equal sharing by the members in the discussion, higher satisfactions of deliberations, and higher levels of group cohesiveness. However, juries of 12 people recalled more evidence accurately and generated a larger number of arguments. They were also more likely to contain member of minorities and hence were more demographically representative of the community than 6-person juries. Research has also been undertaken by psychologists to the study of how beliefs and attitudes of jurors can influence their decision making.
The jury trial system allows the verdict to be tried in front of a group of their peers rather than a single magistrate or judge. A large jury increases the chances of an adequate understanding of the verdict’s personal circumstances and characteristics. The jury also helps mitigate the chances of having one individual who may have certain personal biases and prejudices be the sole decider of the fate of the accused. Jurors are usually selected from different backgrounds and races which adds diverse thought and culture to the decision making process. Although jury trials have proven very effective there are disadvantages to the system.
The lawyer, the sheriff as well as the jurors are all contributors within a criminal justice system with a responsibility to the truth, but who choose to ignore it in order to achieve what they consider the ‘right‘ result, based on their personal morality. I firmly believe that morality should be enshrined in the law and employed impartially to all, through public mechanisms such as trials, not privately or subject to the whims of
‘Are Juries the "Fairest” of Them All?’ 1. INTRODUCTION In the journal titled “Law, Fact or Justice?” written by Professor Zuckerman, he has suggested the notion that “trust in the jury is secured by the fact that it applies standards of adjudication which are both generally familiar and widely accepted” . His reasoning was based on the fact that because juries command trust in the community, therefore, they are in the position to administer adjudication on the merits.