\Considereing the roles of the jury, a jury must listen to the more serious cases dealt with by the criminal justice system. A jury member is there to listen to the evidence that is put in front of them and decide whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty.
Juries take part in criminal cases in the Crown Court and sometimes in civil cases in the County Court and High Court. The defence and prosecution. When the court room evidence has been heard, the jurors will withdraw to discuss the evidence and reach a verdict.
Criminal cases are heard in the Crown Court when a defendant pleads nor guilty. The jury decides whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty, whilst the judge oversees the legal aspects to the aspects to the case. A jury must return a unanimous verdict, if it can, but if it cannot, a majority verdict of 11 to 1 to 10 to 2 will be accepted, provided the jusry discusses the case for at least tow ours and ten minutes.
A jury is used very rarely in civil cases and hears cases involving fraud, defamation of character or malicious prosecution. When a case is heard in the High Court requires twelve as discussed earlier.
The statement that ' Juries are anti-democratic, irrational and haphazard' is to an extent an accurate description of the selection and role of the jury by viewing the details mentioned above and also discussing its disadvantages.
The first being that jurors may not be competent to understand the evidence presented and the issues involved cases involving fraud, which may last for many months, may involve the use of technical terms beyond the grasp of many jurors. In liberal cases for example an average juror may not be able to appreciate the subtle meanings of the offending words- are they statements of facts or merely comments? In addition to reaching a decision a liberal jury has to decide the amount of damages which a successful plaintiff should receive, although they have no training in this aspect and the judge is only allowed to give advice or guidance in general term. The courts, however do have power to substitute the sum awarded, if it appears to the court that the jury's award is excessive or inadequate.
Jurors may be easily convinced by the manner and presentation of the barristers during the trial, or be persuaded by a forceful or belligerent foreman when locked in the jury room.
Then in some trials, for eg motoring offences, juries have a sympathy with the accused. They may be fellow motorists and think there may be fellow motorists and think " there, but for the grace of God, go I."
Although jurors receive payment for traveling expenses,etc and an allowance for loss of earnings, it is probable that many people suffer financial loss. The period of jury service may take many weeks and this may place a strain on certain jurors, such as mothers with very young children or the more elderly. There is a danger that jurors may "agree" with a verdict to bring a quicker end to the trial. Then jurors may experience frustration in having to wait in a court building for many days before being called to serve and possibly never being called during the period of their service. Moving on further cover by television and newspapers of important controversial trials may influence jurors. Although jurors should not discuss the case during the course of the trial it is practically impossible to avoid the opinions of reporters and newsreaders. Then the jurors may suffer from the post traumatic stress disorder in the period after trials which involve horrific crimes, such as murder and rape, and in which the jury is exposed to graphic, gruesome details and photographs of the crime. In Amercia jurors can receive psychiatric counseling directly after the trial is over, but in Britain this facility is not generally available and disturbed jurors have to cope as best as they can. Following the Rosemary West murder trial in 1995, jury members were offered counseling. It is possible for a black person to be tried by a wholly white jury. There has been a move to abate this possible disadvantage by ensuring that a certain number of non-white jurors are selected for a panel, although selection for a particular case is still by ballot from total jurors on the panel.
Moving on further on the other hand, to an extent it can be said that the statement is inaccurate as the general public are very keen to maintain trial by jury. Ordinary people have a part o play in the system.Professionals have to make sure that jurors who are not legally qualified understand the proceedings. The system is kept accessible to all. The use of ordinary people brings the system down to earth. A group decision by eight or twelve people possibly gives fairer results. Juries lastly have a reasonable track record for making the right decision.
Considering al of the above factors I still believe that to an extent Juries are anti-democratic, irrational and haphazard in it is selection and role.
