• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Should the jury trial be abolished?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Should the jury trial be abolished? Introduction In order to decide whether or not trial by jury should or should not be abolished, we need to know what it is that we are dealing with and what viable alternative or alternatives there are to it. I will take a brief look at the history of the jury trial. I will examine the function of the jury and look at what is good and bad about the jury system. Finally I will examine the proposed alternatives to trial by jury that are currently in fashion. Background The jury system first arrived in Britain after the Norman Conquest. The earliest jury was a body of neighbours summoned by a public officer to give oath as answer to some question. The sworn inquest was used to enable the recognition on oath of a number of upstanding members of the community to testify to facts which they had personal knowledge. Those called were not judges of fact, but witnesses. By the end of the twelfth century, a person accused of a crime could, on payment obtain the right to obtain a trial by jury. However, this was abolished in 1215 and a need arouse to find a new method to establish guilt. ...read more.

Middle

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. ...read more.

Conclusion

Jurors may have difficulty in understanding a fraud case. The Roskill Committee in 1986 recommended abolishing juries for complex fraud cases. Other Disadvatages Jury nobbling. Slow trials. Expensive. 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 [1]www.criminal-courts-review.org.uk/ Chapter 5 Juries Jury Excusal and Deferral, Research Findings No. 102, Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate [2]www.criminal-courts-review.org.uk/ Chapter 5 Juries Para 16 [3]www.criminal-courts-review.org.uk/ Chapter 5 Juries Para 26 [4]www.criminal-courts-review.org.uk/ Chapter 5 Juries Para 27 The Jury at Work (1972) [5]www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2000/rp00-023.pdf Page 18-19 British Criminal Statistics By Tom Walkins Source www.criminal-justice-system.gov.uk [6]www.warwick.ac.uk/news/pr/law/191 Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill Briefing Note [7]www.homeoffice.gov.uk/motbrief.htm [8]www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2002/rp02-073. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree English Legal System section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree English Legal System essays

  1. The Jury System.

    disqualified can be fined up to 5,000 pounds for failing to declare that disqualification. A jury is a group of men and women legally chosen to hear a case and to decide the facts from the evidence presented juries are used in civil and criminal cases trial by jury in

  2. Who is and who isn't eligible for jury service within the English legal system. ...

    A Bailiff goes through disqualified people and ineligible people, excusable as of right people if they do not turn up on the set date. If they do not disclose anything, they should get fined up to �5000. Those names chosen may be vetted for criminal convictions via the police computer of criminal records.

  1. Development of Jury

    Frank Miller clearly stated the function of grand jury: "The grand jury serves - or may serve - two distinct functions. One is a screening function; the grand jury evaluates evidence supporting possible charges and returns an indictment only in those cases in which the evidence amounts to at least a probable cause.

  2. the jury

    modern jury trials, jurors decided not only whether the defendant was guilty or not guilty, but they had the third choice: "Guilty, but not to be punished", since Alexander II believed that justice without morality is wrong. In Jury Deliberations and Verdict, after the judge has finished instructing the jury, the jury retires to the jury room to begin deliberations.

  1. An Intangible Obsession- An Essay of Kafka's The Trial

    "One of the men, who was clearly in authority over the other two and took the eye first, was sheathed in a sort of dark leather garment... holding a rod in his hand with which to beat them" (Kafka 84).

  2. 'It is simply unrealistic to think that juries are capable of dealing with long ...

    The bill was not enacted. The government tried again with the Criminal Justice Bill No 2 2000. But again this was not enacted. In addition, the Act made provision for applications by the prosecution for certain fraud cases to be conducted without a jury (s.43)

  1. Law of Evidence

    as generally irrelevant to the issue of consent.25 More importantly what was lacking from in R v Viola was any discussion as to the degree of relevance needed to qualify for admissibility in this context.26 Consequently, in most cases defence counsel argued that the sexual history evidence in question was

  2. Identify the most significant roles performed by the trial judge.

    It is for the judge to consider what issues should be left to the jury and which should be excluded (R v Cohen and Bateman (1909)[24]). As in the case Turnbull (1977)[25] where the judge in a case of disputed identification had to decide whether the identification was sufficient enough for the jury to decide upon it.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work