Law Essay
Part B Essay- Discuss whether the use of juries should be abolished
A jury is a body of 12 randomly selected people convened to render a verdict (finding of fact) on a legal question officially submitted to them, or to set a penalty or judgement in a jury trial of a court of law.
The role of a jury is passive; they simply take notes and listen to evidence. They determine issues of fact- not law, and do not hear certain types of evidence such as ‘hear say’ evidence. They listen to the judge sum up and direct on legal issues and then go on to retire in private. In this time they have to discuss the case and decide whether they believe that the defendant is guilty or not guilty. If they have not reached a unanimous decision after 2 hours and 10 minutes, the judge will then accept a majority decision of 10-2. The jury have to be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt in their decision. If the jury cannot reach a decision it is called a ‘hung jury’, and the defendant is then acquitted.
There are many advantages of using juries. Jurors are independent of the executive and the judiciary; and with 12 people any bias is likely to be cancelled out. Many judges believe jurors usually return the right verdict, and there are also very few appeals from jury verdicts. The jury system is a traditional, efficient system with 800 years of success- so is there really any need to change it? They tend not to have any legal qualifications, but character and honesty can be judged by ordinary people, it does not require any legal skills. Juries can have a corrective effect on unfairness/bias and more importantly are not case hardened. There is little or no pressure on the jury, as they make their decision totally in private, unlike a judge- this could be seen as a good or a bad thing in the eyes of the public. Jurors are randomly selected from society from the electoral register, this makes them representative of society, and therefore more ‘in touch’ with the public than the typical judge. In addition, juries include many ethnic minorities as a percentage of the whole population due to random selection. Defendants are also tried by their piers- this is favoured by many. Jurors are not bound by precedent, and the cost is minimal. However the most important factor is that jurors seem to be highly regarded by the public, the Runciman Commission and the Auld Report found that- 85% of people believe that trial by jury is fairer than a trial by a judge alone, and 2/3 of people do not want to see a reduction in the number of trials by jury.
