Download JURIES AS AN EFFECTIVE FORM OF JUSTICE

JURIES AS AN EFFECTIVE FORM OF JUSTICE – Josh Brian
PROS OF JURIES
1. Jurors bring an open mind
and common-sense
judgement to bear that expert
panels would lack. Expert
panels would tend to become
‘case-hardened’ and cynical,
disbelieving often-heard
defences simply because
they were frequently
encountered, not judging
them on their merits.
2. In countries where jury trials
are common, juries are often
seen as an important check
against state power. Other
common assertions about the
benefits of trial by jury is that
it provides a means of
interjecting community norms
and values into judicial
proceedings and that it
legitimizes the law by
providing opportunities for
citizens to validate criminal
statutes in their application to
specific trials. Alexis de
Tocqueville also claimed that
jury trials educate citizens
about self-government. Many
also believe that a jury is
likely to provide a more
sympathetic hearing, or a
fairer one, to a party who is
not part of the government –
or other establishment
interest – than would
representatives of the state.
3. Juries are a check on the
arbitrary and corrupt power
of government. As the 19thcentury political philosopher
Lysander Spooner wrote,
juries provide a trial by the
country rather than a trial by
the government authorities. If
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONS OF JURIES
Jurors are unreliable lay
people, uninformed about the
law and with no training, and
no proven skills of
attentiveness, analysis or
fairness. They, unlike legal
experts, will be swayed by
prejudice and preconception
(eg judging defendants by
their appearance) […] most
jurors will be swayed by the
summing up of the judge.
In highly emotional cases,
such as child rape, the jury
may be tempted to convict
based on personal feelings
rather than on conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.
Former attorney, then later
minister of Justice Robert
Badinter, remarked about
jury trials in France that they
were like "riding a ship into a
storm," because they are
much less predictable than
bench trials.
Juries rely all the time on
their personal experience
and knowledge -- but they're
not allowed to rely on
authority or evidence beyond
what they hear in trial. A
Ninth Circuit opinion today
shows that sometimes the line
between the two means life
itself.
Another argument against
letting juries judge the law is
that a jury may let a guilty
man free because it is
prejudiced in favour of the
defendant and against the
victim. A racist jury, for
example, might refuse to
convict someone even when
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
a law is unjust, juries have the
legal right to refuse to
enforce it.
With twelve people any bias
is likely to be cancelled out.
Efficient system, with 800
years of success.
Serving on a jury increases
people’s sense of social
solidarity and citizenship, and
improves confidence in the
Criminal Justice System,
research published by the
Home Office today reveals.
The research shows that just
under two-thirds of those
engaging in jury service had
a more positive view of the
jury system after completing
their service. Main factors
associated with this positive
change were the
professionalism of the judge
and court staff and how jurors
were treated. Negative
responses were largely
shaped by delays, the
perceived trivial nature of
some cases, and the way in
which some cases were
presented and the standard of
some court facilities.
The intent, and for all
practical purpose, the
outcome, of the jury system is
to provide determination of
'guilt' or 'innocence' by an
objectively selected
representation of the accused'
peers. A segment of the
society of which he/she is
accused of committing a
criminal act(s) against. In this,
is the advantage of jury trial
in our social criminal justice
system. 'Being as fair as we
possibly can'.
With a jury there are more
minds, theoretically totaling
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
the facts show he is guilty.
Increasingly, however, the
front pages--and Court TV-are telling a very different
story: More and more jury
verdicts are offending
common sense by
contradicting publicly known
facts of the case. We all
watched Los Angeles police
officer Stacy Koon and four
others beat Rodney King
nearly to death; yet a Simi
Valley jury let the cops walk.
Then we all watched
hooligans beat truck driver
Reginald Denny nearly to
death with a brick in South
Central L.A.; yet another Los
Angeles jury let them off the
most serious charges.
Jury vetting [defendant
lawyers effectively choosing
who will sit on the jury] is
against the principle of
random selection.
I would say the biggest
disadvantage is that most jury
members do not understand
the laws that they have to
follow nor do they understand
the judge's instructions most
of the time. I was actually on 3
juries back home in RI and
members kept on asking me
to explain some of the
proceedings to them.
A disadvantage of the jury is
that none of the jurors have
legal expertise and can be
persuaded by clever lawyers
who confuse the jurors with
technical language and sway
their opinions.
The disadvantage is that the
average person drafted for
jury duty is as dumb as a
stump. I'll take trial by a
judge. With juries all it takes
up to a more equal evaluation
of the case.
10. The major advantages of the
summary jury trial are simply
the savings for all concerned
if it is successful in prompting
a settlement. If the parties
reach a settlement, they may
save time in conducting
discovery and presenting
motions and, of course, in
conducting the trial. And the
appeal process is also
avoided. In addition, the
summary jury trial is a
mechanism for forcing parties
to hear what an unbiased jury
really thinks of their case. All
too often, parties in litigation
have occasional
communications via
attorneys, with little or no
outside correction or
feedback given on the course
of their litigation. In the
summary jury trial, either the
verdict returned will be a
"split the difference" type
decision, in which the parties
will have been given an
outline of a settlement, or the
verdict will cause one party to
worry about its chances at
trial. In that event, that party
is likely to be much more
receptive to settlement offers
from the other side.
is one out of twelve to screw
up the process. With judges,
it remains about a fifty fifty
chance that the person can
understand the situation.
10. By its nature as a jury
centered proceeding, the
summary jury trial does not
give the parties any useful
clues about the outcome of
issues of law. If a trial is likely
to turn on issues of law, the
summary jury trial is of little,
if any, value.
All information in the table is quoted directly from the sources.
OTHER FACTS ABOUT JURIES
1. Each year, approximately 3 million people are called for jury duty in
America. Out of those, only about 1.2 million people actually wind
up serving. This discrepancy is due to a variety of reasons:




15-20% of people commit the crime of refusing to respond to a jury
summons
Others might fall under some of the exemptions from jury service
(such as being an attorney, or if jury duty would cause unusual
financial hardship)
Some people who show up for jury service might not be assigned to
a trial
Out of those assigned to a trial, some might be excused by an
attorney because of possible prejudices or biases
2. Go to www.videojug.com/interview/jury-selection-facts-2 for more
information on jury selection and on how perhaps the jury will not
be a fair representation of the defendant’s civilian peers.
3. You can pay jury consultants […] to write questionnaires that will
reveal consumer tastes, habits, even the cars they drive. That
becomes important when, in a drunken driving case, for example, a
consultant can tell the defendant’s lawyer that the owner of a
minivan is more likely to vote to convict than a Porsche driver is.
Conclusion: Keep the minivan owner off the jury. Hiring a consultant
is obviously more subtle than slipping a juror a wad of $100 bills, but
it is almost as effective and sends the same message: Justice is for
sale. If you can afford the consultant's price tag (which can run up to
$1 million), you get a leg up on finding a jury that will acquit or
prosecute anyone, regardless of evidence.
4. Go to http://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/mod1 for a full list of
advantages and disadvantages to jury trials.
If you would like further information, here are my sources (numbers
correlate to numbers in table):
PROS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Pros and Cons, a Debaters Handbook, 18th Edition
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial#Pros_and_cons
www.progress.org/fold22.htm
http://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/mod1
http://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/mod1
http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/pressreleases/Jury_Service_A_Positive_Experience
7. http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/pressreleases/Jury_Service_A_Positive_Experience
8. www.holysmoke.org/c000/077.htm
9. Yahoo Answers
10. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_Jury_Trial
CONS
1. Pros and Cons, a Debaters Handbook, 18th Edition
2. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial#Pros_and_cons
3. http://jurylaw.typepad.com/deliberations
4. www.progress.org/fold22.htm
5. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316
6. http://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/mod1
7. www.enotes.com/law/group/discuss/what-you-believe
8. wikianswers.com/Q/Advantages _and _disadvantages_of_jury
9. Yahoo Answers
10. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_Jury_Trial
OTHER FACTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
http://library.thinkquest.org/2760/learn5.htm
Address already mentioned
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316
Address already mentioned