Would the quality of the criminal justice be improved by abolishing the use of juries in criminal courts

Authors Avatar

WOULD THE QUALITY OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE BE IMPROVED BY ABOLISHING THE USE OF JURIES IN CRIMINAL COURTS?

BY ISAAC GONDWE

There has been an over exhausting debate on whether the quality of criminal justice would be improved by abolishing the use of the jury in criminal courts. This essay will weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the jury in the system.

The jurors may not be competent to understand the evidence the presented and the issues involved even though the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt. Cases involving fraud may last for many months may involve the use technical terms beyond the grasp of many jurors. R. Card in “Criminal Law”(1992) says that in libel cases an average juror may not be able to appreciate the subtle meanings of the offending words. Since no reasons are given for the verdict there is no way of knowing if the jury did understand the case and came to the decision of the right reason. J. Martin in “English Legal System” gives an example in R v Young in which the defendant was charge with murder of two people. The jury had to stay overnight in a hotel as they had not reached a verdict by the end of the first day of discussion. During this stay at the hotel some members of the jury held a seance using the ouija board to try to contact the dead victims and ask the who had killed them. The next day the jury returned with a verdict of guilty. When the fact that the ouija board had been used became known the defendant appealed and the court of Appeal quashed the verdict and ordered a retrial of the case. It is this failure to grasp the terms that some pundits in the Roskill Committee (1986) suggested that jurors should not be used in complex fraud cases. They suggested that two lay assessors who have expertise in accounts who may be able to understand the complexities of the terms be used. It is said by J. Martin that in New Zealand defendants can choose not to be tried by a jury but a single judge.

The selection of the jury is not always a true cross-selection. This is criticised through the use of the electors list as a sampling frame. It does not give a representative sample of the population. This is because not every one registers to vote, especially the young and those from ethnic minorities, also it excludes the homeless. The Runciman Commission (1993) recommended that in exceptional cases, it should be possible for either the prosecution or the defence to apply for the selection of the jury to contain up to three jurors from ethnic minorities. At the moment there is no power for the judge to empanel a multi-racial jury as was the case in R v Ford (1989). The manual selection of the jury may lead to an unbalanced jury as it was shown at the Old Bailey in 1993 when out of a panel of 12 jurors, 9 came from Romford, 2 of them living within 20 doors of each other in the same street. In case afresh jury was called. This time it contained seven members from Ilford. Finally at the third attempt a more mixed jury was obtained. Although some checks are carried out, many disqualified people fail to disclose the fact and sit on as jurors against Juries Act 1974 and the Juries (disqualification) Act 1984. A Home Office survey in inner London estimated that in every 24 jurors one was disqualified.

Join now!

The cover by television and newspapers of important or controversial trials may influence the jurors. Although Section 8 (1) of Contempt Of Court (1981) jurors aren’t allowed to discuss the case during the course of trial, it is practically impossible to avoid the opinions of the reporters and newsreaders. In R v Taylor and Taylor (1993) in which two sisters were charged with murder. Some news papers published a still from a video sequence which gave a false impression of what happened. After the jury convicted them, the trial judge gave leave to appeal because of the possible influence ...

This is a preview of the whole essay