Purpose of a Jury
At this point it may be pertinent to remind ourselves that the purpose of a trial is to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused based on the facts presented and to deliver a verdict according to the law. This is the same for all modes of trial, not just in jury trials. To convict, it must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, and it also does not have to justify its decision. The crucial point here is that the jury decides the guilt of the accused. Many of the arguments for and against the jury system concern the competence of twelve randomly selected ordinary citizens to decide such a question. However, it is also important to point out here that juries decide only a very small proportion of criminal cases, 1–2%. The great majority are tried in Magistrates’ Courts. Of those that come to Crown Court, only cases which are contested and which have not been dismissed by the judge are tried by jury.
Perverse Verdicts
Juries have the right to judge according to their conscience, that is to say a jury has the right to pronounce any verdict that it sees fit without fear of punishment. It can deliver a verdict of ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ or even sometimes ‘guilty of a lesser offence’. It decides this on the basis of the evidence given in court. Judges have the power to direct juries to acquit the accused where there is insufficient evidence to convict them. There is, however, no corresponding judicial power to instruct juries to convict. Therefore, juries have been known to come to perverse verdicts as they failed to understand the evidence properly. A study done by McCabe & Purves looked at 173 acquitals and concluded that 9% defied the evidence.
Proposed Alternatives
Up to this point I have concentrated on the jury system and some of the problems that have been associated with it and some proposals for future change. It can be seen that it is far from perfect and is still in need of radical but careful reform in order to address some of the criticism levelled at it. However, the question asked was whether or not we should abolish it? In order to be able to make a judgement it is only fair that we look to the possible alternatives to try to evaluate whether they would represent an improvement on our present system.
One option to consider would be to use the inquisotorial system as used in many parts of the world. The advantage of using a single judge could be that the problem of perverse verdicts would be greatly reduced. We could expect judges to assess evidence rationally, and with intelligence and understanding juries are likely to be swayed by irrational factors, such as emotion, prejudice and rhetoric. Judges on the other hand, would be likely to base their verdicts on a dispassionate appraisal of the evidence. Also jury trails can be expensive and slow. Trail by investigating judges would result in not just more reasoned verdicts, but also quicker verdicts. Nevertheless, although judges are supposed to be independent, there would always be the suspicion that they were acting as agents of the government.
However, the key benefit of the jury system is public participation and all that it brings with it. They are not agents of the state and are not bound by legal precedent. Also as mentioned before they do not have to give reasons for their decisions which means that they can refuse to convict if they think that the prosecution is unfair or that the government is abusing its power. As mentioned earlier a jury is not always made up of a representative sample of the public and therefore could be biased. However, our judiciary is not made up of a more representitive sample of society. I would say that the risk of bias amongst the judiciary is far greater than that of a jury.
There is also the case of transparency of justice. Both judges and lawers are obliged to make the case comprehensible to the jury, so they are obliged to explain it in terms an ordinary person can understand. If cases were decided by judges, they would be unintelligible to most people. As a result justice would no longer be transparent. Also the involvement of ordinary citizens in the judicial process promotes public support for the law. The law is most effective when people obey through goodwill, not fear. If the law were administered entirely by professionals, it would come to be seen as an alien imposition.
Proposed Improvements
In relation specifically to the problem with the selection of juries, there have been numerous recommendations:
- That every endeavour should be made to ensure that the electoral rolls are comprehensive and include everybody who ought to be included.
- Clergymen and members of religios orders should be eligible; but practicing members of religious sects which object to jury service should be excluded.
- Potential jurors should be given alternative dates if they cannot sit on the date originally suggested.
- The rates of financial allowances for those on jury service should be reviewed.
- Jury summoning officers should try to make sure that potential jury members do not know each other or the accused.
There has also been some recommendation designed to improve the operation of the existing disqualification procedure and the ethnic makeup of the jurors. Addressing the ethnicity problem it has been recommended that in exceptional cases, it should be possible for either the prosecution or the defence to apply to have the jury selected in such a way as to ensure that it contains at least three people from ethnic minority communities.
Summary
The ideological power of the jury system should not be underestimated. It represents the oridinary person’s input into the legal system and it is at least arguable that in that way it provides the whole legal system with a sense of legitimacy. It has been repeatedly suggested by those in favour of abolishing, that the general preception of the jury is romanticised and has little foundation in reality. A report by the Roskill Committee states that society appears to have an attachment to jury trial which is emotional or sentimental rather than logical. However, if we were to examine the advantages and disadvantages of jury trial, we could maybe get a more clear picture:
Conclusion
One cannot get away from the fact that jury trial is expensive, when compared to Magistrates trials. In 1997-98 a trial day cost £8,700 at crown court and only £500 at a Magistrates court. None of our public services have bottomless budgets and the savings that could potentially be made by abolishing the jury system are substantial. However I feel that the alternatives to the jury system proposed all have major flaws, some of which could adversely affect the perception of our criminal justice system as being overall a fair and just system. I feel that we should keep trial by jury and implement reforms that ensure that it becomes an even fairer and more representative system.
Bibligraphy
David M. Walker The Oxford Companion To Law (1980) p 686.
British Criminal Statistics Source www.criminal-justice-system.gov.uk
Chapter 5 Juries
Jury Excusal and Deferral, Research Findings No. 102, Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate
Chapter 5 Juries Para 16
Chapter 5 Juries Para 26
Chapter 5 Juries Para 27
The Jury at Work (1972)
British Criminal Statistics By Tom Walkins Source www.criminal-justice-system.gov.uk
Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill Briefing Note
Martin, J The English Legal System (2002)
Gary Slapper & David Kelly The English Legal System Fifth Edition (2001)
