Of god, they believe everyone deserves a second chance. It is said that people with a religious vocation are less likely to convict. The people who are disqualified from doing jury service are people who have had
a community sentence in the last 10 years, anyone who has been in prison for more than 5 years or in the last 10 years, or people who have had a suspended sentence in the last 10 years. There are two different groups of people who can be excused. These are; people who can be excused by right, and people who are excused at the judge’s discretion. The people who are excused by right are doctors, people in the armed forces, MP’s and people who have served in the last 2 years. Doctors can be excused by right because their job can be seen as very demanding, and they could be needed at any time throughout the trial. People in the armed forces could be out of the country when they are called to do jury service, or they could be home for a short time, and want to spend that time with their family, rather than do jury service. MP’s would also be excused because their job is seen to be very demanding. People who have served in the last 2 years would have the right to be excused because they would have already done the service, and they might not be able to afford any more time away from their job, for an obvious number of reasons. The people who are excused at the judge’s discretion are; mothers, students, key workers such as nurses, and people who have holidays booked. Mothers could be excused because they are needed by their children. Students could have critical exams that they need to sit, key workers such as nurses need to be in their job to look after patients, and people who have holidays booked might not have another chance to go, and they had planned to go before they were called for jury service and it seems unfair to jeopardise their plans.
Procedure for jurors in court.
The courtroom.
The courtroom is where the trial happens. In the courtroom there are an important number of people needed for the trial to undergo, these are; a judge, a legal advisor, a prosecution advocate, a crown prosecution service representative, a defence advocate, the defendant, a witness, a probation representative, the usher, a defence representative, a logger, the public gallery, a dock officer, press, and jury members. The judge is needed to take charge and responsibility, so that the trial is presented in an understandable and balanced way. The judge settles any legal argument, advises the jury, and sentencing the defendant if he is found guilty. A legal advisor is needed to take responsibility in the way that the courtroom runs, he also takes the verdict from the jury foreman. A prosecution advocate is a barrister or solicitor whose job is to present the evidence against the defendant. They explain what the defendant is suspected of and then present the evidence to the jury and the courtroom, against the defendant. The crown prosecution service representative decides if crimes investigated by the police should go to court, and if so, conducts the case for prosecution. They prepare the case, and are in court to assist the prosecution advocate. The CPS representative hold the prosecution file in court, and advise the prosecution advocate during the duration of the trial. The defence advocate represents the person who is accused of a crime. They do this by questioning the prosecution evidence, and presenting their own evidence on behalf of the defendant. If the defendant is found guilty, the defence advocate will then present the judge with reasons why leniency should be shown in sentencing, this is called mitigation. The defendant is the person who is accused of the crime. In some cases, there is more than one defendant. It is not their job to prove their innocence, it is for the prosecution to prove that they are guilty. The defendant is in the dock and is accompanied by a dock officer throughout the trial. A witness is a person who gives evidence in a trial. In most cases, the witness saw the offence that was committed, either as a victim or a bystander. The witness could be a police officer who is giving details of the arrest, a doctor giving medical evidence or a forensic investigator reporting the findings of a fingerprint search. Some trials have expert witnesses to give their view on the details of the trial. A probation representative may be asked to prepare a pre sentencing report for the court if the defendant is convicted. This report includes weather the probation service feels that the defendant is eligible for a community based sentence. They also supervise some of the penalties. The ushers move around the court during a trial, ensuring that the trial is running smoothly. There are sometimes two ushers; the jury’ usher, and the witness’s usher. They guide the jury and witnesses into and out of the court, and administer oaths. A defence representative is the legal representative for the defendant and helps the defence advocate present their evidence. They will take notes as the evidence is given in case the defence needs to refer back to some things they have said later on in the case. The logger records the proceedings, either on tape, or using a modified word processor called a stenograph. The public gallery is an area of the court that is open to the public, if they want to sit in the trial. Members of the press may be in the trial. No jury member is allowed to speak to press. Jury members are sat in a bench of 12 on the trial to give their opinions, hear the evidence and arguments from both the prosecution and the defence representatives, and then make a final decision on weather they think the defendant is guilty or innocent.
The jury room.
The jury room is where all 12 members of the jury go to discuss the evidence presented in the trial, and then decide on a verdict. The jury must elect a spokesperson to stand up and present their verdict to the court; this person is called the foreman of the jury. Whilst the jurors are in the jury room they are to have no contact with anyone outside the jury room except for giving a note to the usher. The jury are given plenty of time to discuss the evidence and reach their verdict, but in some cases the jury don’t always agree. In this case the judge will accept a majority verdict. If the jury cannot reach a verdict, then there is a complete retrial with a new jury.
The verdict.
When the jury have reached a verdict, the jury will return to the courtroom. The legal advisor will then ask the jury foreman for the verdict. When the jury’s verdict is given, their work on that trial is then over. If the defendant is found guilty, the judge may pass an immediate sentence, or ask for a pre – sentencing report prepared by a probation officer. If this does not happen then the defendant will then return to the court at a later date for sentencing.
How effective is trial by jury?
Arguments in favour of trial by jury.
Lord Denning put the arguments in favour of trial by jury in the following civil case. Ward v James 1966, Lord Denning said, “ Let it not be supposed that this court is in any way opposed to trial by jury. It has been the bulwark of our liberties too long for any of us to seek to alter it. whenever a man is on trial for serious crime, or when in a civil case a man’s honour or integrity is at stake, or when one or another party must be deliberately lying, then trial by jury has no equal”. There are many advantages for a trial by jury. For example, the jury system gives gives the public a role to play in the British legal system, and the potential to influence the law itself. In the case of R v Ponting, The jury refused to convict Clive Ponting of breaking the Official Secrets Act even though he had clearly done so. They did this because they believed that he had acted in the public interest. This is just one example of how jurors can influence the law. Another advantage for trial by jury is that jurors usually come from the area that the case is being heard in, therefore they have a better local knowledge and understanding than a judge so are therefore better able to empathise with the defendant. Also Jurors are randomly selected off the electoral roll, so they are much more likely to be socially representative than a judge. The majority of judges went to a private school, and are said to be more biased than a panel of jurors. Another advantage of trial by jury is that twelve opinions are seen to be fairer than one. This way many different viewpoints are seen, and the decision would be more relevant than if it was just the view of one single person. The notion of trial by peers assures the public of their rights regarding civil liberties. This may be seen as less important since the passing of the human rights act 1998. Also Juries normally get the verdict right.
Arguments against trial by jury.
Although there are many arguments to say trial by jury is an effective method to use, there are also disadvantages of having a trial by jury, some people view trial by jury as being unnecessary, like Professor Hogan who once said “Trial by jury has long outlived it’s usefulness. We preserve it because it is like a sacred cow.” Firstly there is a risk of the jury not fully understanding the trial. For example in the case of R v Connor and Rollock 2004, a juror wrote to the court to admit that he and his fellow jurors had not fully understood the evidence put before them in the trial, but had decided to convict the defendants anyway, in order to “teach them a lesson”. So as you can see this is one of a few cases where the verdict is not completely reliable. Another disadvantage of trial by jury is that trials are lengthy and expensive, so it will cost both the defence, and the prosecutor a lot of money in order to keep the trial going. Also there is reluctance to serve. For example if a person is running their own business, and them not being there to run it would effect the business, people would not want to serve. Another downfall of trial by jury is that there is no literacy or intelligence test, and because of this there could be some people on a jury panel who do not fully understand the trial, or the evidence presented within a trial, and therefore their opinion on the decision of a person’s guilt or innocence is not completely valid. Also jurors may be swayed by good advocacy skills rather than the facts. The judge may influence a person’s decision because of their legal qualifications, and their knowledge and understanding of a trial, so therefore the verdict would not have come completely from the people, because of the influence of other more legal representative individuals. Another disadvantage is that in more public cases, the jury could me influenced by the media. If a trial for example involves celebrities the press are almost certain to get involved, and could express their views in the newspaper or on the news, and the views of these people could influence a jury members decision, so therefore again, the verdict would not be completely reliable.
Possible improvements to the current system.
There are many possible improvements that could be made to the jury system, but the most important ones in my opinion are; for the possible juror to sit a basic test to see if they are able to understand a trial, this way there will be a fairer, and more reliable verdict. The other important improvement that could be made is a raise in the age that you are able to serve. In my opinion, at the age of 18 you haven’t had enough life experience, in order to give a reliable input to the trial, whereas if you were older, you would understand the trial better, and are able to give a better verdict than an 18 year old.
Possible alternatives to the current system.
There are a number of alternative methods to trial by jury. For instance; Trial by a single judge only. The advantages of this method are it is cheaper than a trial by jury, because no expenses would be needed for the jury, it reduces the risk of jury tampering because a judge is less vulnerable than ordinary people, a more experienced decision would be made because a judge has better knowledge and understanding of the legal system, and can discuss more complex evidence and points of law, the whole trial would be quicker because the more understanding of the trial the judge has, the quicker the decision would be made, and finally there would never be a hung jury, because the decision only relies on one person. The disadvantages of trial by a single judge only would be; judges are more prosecution minded so they are less likely to empathise with the defendant, they don’t have such a good local knowledge as a jury, there will only be one opinion so no other view points can be heard or discussed, therefore the verdict will not be as fair, it disrupts the tradition of having a trial by jury, and finally the public’s faith in the legal system will be lost because they would no longer play a role in the legal system. Another alternative to trial by jury is Trial by a panel of judges. The advantages of using this method are; there would be a more executive decision made because there are three experienced judges, so there will be different view points heard, and therefore the decision would be a fairer one, Judges have more legal knowledge than a jury so more complex evidence can be presented and discussed, and lastly there would be a quicker decision made because they are more knowledgeable, experienced, and legally representative than a jury. The disadvantages of trial by a panel of judges are; its a lot more expensive because three judges would have to be paid, where as a jury only gets expenses, several more judges would have to be found in order to keep up with the demand for them, the verdict is more likely to be a guilty one because judges are more prosecution minded, and also it would abolish the public’s participation in the legal system, so all faith would be lost. Another mode of trial would be Trial by a judge, and two lay assessors. The advantages of using this method would be; it eliminates the slowness and cost of using a jury, but it still retains public involvement so the faith of public in the British legal system would not be lost, and also it avoids the problem of lack of understanding because anything that is not understood by the two lay assessors, can be explained by the judge. The main disadvantage of using this method is there would not be as a wider cross section of society, so less opinions would be heard, and therefore the verdict will not be as fair as it could be. The last alternative to trial by jury is trial by judge and a mini jury of six or seven jurors. The advantages of using this method are; it saves some cost because less expenses have to be paid, it maintains the local knowledge because there are still people from the society having an input in the trial, and finally this method would be more likely to maintain the public’s faith in the system because there is still some involvement of ordinary working class people. Although a big disadvantage of using this method is that most of the present problems with a jury would still remain.
Conclusion.
I think that the current system that we have is a good one, for the simple reason in my opinion, public involvement in the system is a very important factor to consider, if the public wasn’t involved in the legal system then there would be no public faith in the legal system, and that will result in a lot of problems. Also trials wouldn’t be completely fair, because judges are said to be more prosecution minded, and biased, so the defendant wouldn’t get a fair verdict. I understand that there are problems with the current system, but they are problems that in my opinion can be resolved. For example I think that the fact that anyone from the age of 18–70 can serve is a problem, because the people that are randomly selected could have problems, for example they could be illiterate, and would therefore not understand the case fully, so their contribution to the case, and their verdict would not be completely reliable. To resolve this issue I personally think that a basic mathematics and literacy test should be put in place to see weather the jury member would be able to serve, and if their contribution to the case would be completely necessary.