Arguments for and against juries.

By Kathryn Hughes

December 2004

The right to a trial by jury is a tradition that goes right to the heart of the British legal system. It is a right fiercely fought for, and fiercely defended at those times when its powers have been seen to be under threat - as those backing reforms are finding. The tradition of being "tried by a jury of ones peers" probably has its origins in Anglo Saxon custom, which dictated that an accused man could be acquitted if enough people came forward to swear his innocence. Trial by jury was first enshrined in law in what has been seen as the world's first proclamation of human rights - the Magna Carter.
The document, decreed in 1215 by King John after a rebellion by his barons, stated that a "freeman shall not be... imprisoned... unless by the judgement of his peers". The right to trial by jury was finally established absolutely in the legal system following the trial of William Penn in 1670. A jury of 12 randomly chosen citizens of London refused to convict the Quaker of "leading a dissident form of worship", despite being directed to by the judge and subjected to imprisonment and starvation in a bid to force their hand. The latest government proposals are seen by some as a direct attack on the traditions established in the Magna Carta and confirmed in the Penn trial.
The government wants some defendants to lose the right to choose trial by jury over magistrates' hearing. Supporters say reform is practical for an overburdened modern legal system. The proposed changes affect an Act of 1855 allowing some crimes to be tried by magistrates instead of a higher court if the defendant agreed. The act was designed - like the new proposals - to speed up the legal process. The offences covered included theft, burglary, actual bodily harm and criminal damage. Minor offences, such as drunkenness, could only be tried by magistrates, and major offences, such as murder and rape, only by jury. The government now wants to limit the number of cases which are "triable either way".

There have been many debates throughout time about the effectivness of juries. SWR worldwide was commisioned by The Bar Council and The Law Society to conduct research of 903 members of the public aged between 18 and over across England. The findings were as follows;

The above chart shows a clear agreement of the general public on juries and the trust they show in their abilities. Similarly the research showed that the public has more faith in police and juries than others in the justice system.

Respondents are most likely to have confidence in the police (81%) and ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Respondents are most likely to have confidence in the police (81%) and juries (80%) than in other players in the justice system.
Most think a jury of 12 individuals rather than a judge and two magistrates would be more likely to reflect their own (73%) and society at large's (80%) views and values.
In fact, two thirds (64%) say that, should they appear as a defendant in court, they would prefer to have a jury of their peers rather than a judge and two magistrates or a judge alone decide their case.

However, the same people that make the argument against juries may criticise those who agree with it for similar reasons.

Some of the disadvantages are obvious but others are not. A jury is a randomly picked and legally untrained body of men and women trying to cope with inconvinience, disconfory and artificialities of a criminal trial. No formal training is given to these people who have to take part by law, just a short video explaining selection, role, trial procrdure and majority verdict. The most obvious disadvantage could be that judges are generally not open to intimidation and outside influences but jurors are. In comparrison, judges may become case hardened wereas jurors will not. As juries are randomly picked, there may be stronger, more influential people who dominate others orthey may not understand the terminology used within the evidence given in a case, especially in complex cases such as fraud.