Essay in English Law Whether it is Unfair for Criminal Justice Insiders to Sit On Jury
Most likely, it is unfair for someone who works in the criminal justice system to be chosen to participate as jury selection-members, in the British legal system. Prior to the time of the Global Recession of 2008, one report discussed several aspects of the UK-defined protocol of what a jury-system process entails. Commentary was made regarding the UK jury system historical roots, trial-jury size, secrecy, independence, and selection (“Jury Service – Crown Prosecution”). One set of erudite Australian Professors noted that the advent of social media had fundamentally caused problems, especially during trials (Wallace et al. 2011). Consider, however, the following statement as a rubric for this essay. Consider the following for example. If a police officer, criminal lawyer or a judge, sits as a jury member in a criminal trial, they will subconsciously be biased against the defendant. A well-taken perspective in a journal article by Charlotte Lennox, reflecting one study, indicated that in the United Kingdom (UK) certain user information is shared, especially between criminal justice employees and mental health officials, despite the impediments of computer systems because of data confidentiality. This essay explores the extent to which judges, criminologists, or police sitting on English-Law juries actually has an impact. An effort to present a cogent argument that the statement holds a reasonable level of veracity shall adduce supporting authority to substantiate the answer.
A brief historical gaze may help to shed light on the English Common Law concept. According to book author, James Oldham in his 2004 publishing, ideas pertaining to jury style processes in the UK began to take shape in the early 1700s, during colonial times. The socio-political climate of the day prompted street violence when disagreements of Indian trade laws arose, for example, inspiring lynching and people in crowds being killed. Legal situations usually always reduced to political arguments. Heated opinions and debates would ensue. The key notion for consideration herein is whether jurisprudence can allot fairness for both jury member, and defendant in a criminal case in which a juror holds a professional position in the legal field. Emotions apparently run high. Writer John Hostettler (2004) in his book noted that when issues regarding juries run passionate, it “seems to suggest that juries are anomalous,” quoting one academic as characterizing English law jury selection as “irrational,” embedded with “erratic and secret decisions” which run counter “to the rule of law.” Plain, reasonable sense dictates that on the one hand, persons who happen to be in the criminal law professions have a right to full participation in civic society in functions as serving on juries. The controversy arises when the factors of their positions gives criminal justice professionals the potential of accessing privileged information. This deemed ‘insider’ information, and personal bias can be a strong evidence of imputed bias which may be potently exploited. The possibility can be severely detrimental, and negatively impact the defendant – who is in a much weaker position of power.
Many legal professionals, particularly judges and law enforcement officers, are part of careers which see the worst part of humanity. They have cynical minds, and could falsely influence jury decisions while siting in these positions. Evidence from the contemporary literature suggests this concept to be valid. Hoyle and Rosenblatt, in their book, declared that UK restorative justice practices are repetitive, and that nobody learns from it, thus, basically for naught. Hoyle’s and Rosenblatt’s assessment is based upon looking at the contemporary situation involving juvenile offenders, and deeming that restorative programs in the UK have been a failure, with shortcomings that proliferate roles wherein a lack of victim involvement persists. Given this realistic outlook, as reported by Hoyle and Rosenblatt, the pessimistic view that scores of judges, law enforcement police officers, and other criminal justice personnel (or formerly, even retired) may very well hold a conscious, or subliminal bias against those defendants who appear before magistrates.
A universal appeal in the acknowledgment of victims’ reluctance to participate in restorative justice programs seems universal. Zvi Gabbay, a former Tel Aviv District Attorney and Prosecutor, wrote in a journal article that crime victims do not feel any empathy from the judges themselves. The public fails to view the system as fair. Furthermore, another aspect which tends to damn the idea of criminal justice professionals, whether current or former personnel serving on juries, is the natural sharing of information between agencies. For example, the health profession in terms of mental health, sharing information with law enforcement. Stevenson et al.indicated that offenders anywhere have a lot of health and social care needs in their lives. Because the cadre of agencies interface in the UK, involves the police service, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Prisoner Escort and Custody Services, and “Her Majesty’s Prison Service and the probation service, the National Health Service (NHS),” and on it goes. In other words, the agencies and interactions are tightly-knit across law enforcement and criminal justice system professionals. It is a great thing for these professionals to join forces when solving crimes, but quite another if they sit on a jury panel.
One university observer, having published an article in the British Journal of Community Justice in Sheffield, England made an interesting notation which seems to verify the validity of the nonsense associated with any non-biased attitude of judges, and criminal justice professionals sitting on the jury bench in a criminal trial. The author, Flynn, insisted that the rules set forth an accordance with “the longstanding principle that unconvicted prisoners” be treated as “innocent until proven guilty,” however after a series of surveys inspecting the situational outcome provided evidence that the level of mistreatment among non-convicted prisoners (un-sentenced, and awaiting trial) were made to endure much worse conditions than the sentenced ones. Flynn goes on to explain in his journal article, which is basically an assessment of an effort of the functionality of restorative justice, that there seems to be too much variation across police force agencies, to properly allow for any successful resolutions of these types of programs. It is particularly important to pay attention to the Flynn article, since quantitative data findings are also included. Some of these facts are stated as follows:
40 percent of remand prisoners asking for mental health help, receive none, some being at higher suicide and self-harm risk
47 percent meet challenges in gaining bail information, encountering difficulty contacting their solicitors, feeling trial-staff as “insensitive to their needs”
These key findings occurred in the recent year of 2012. Additionally, Flynn’s research discovered that while victims tends to desire harsher punitive outcomes for offenders, they do not wish to exclude the possibility of reform and rehabilitation. However, it is a mixed bag, given the sensitive nature of the principle, most doubt the practical outcome in light of the theory.
If you really think about it, criminal justice officials, and professionals, police enforcement officers, and judges are not entirely to blame for what they have seen in their careers and a reflection of their attitudes, whether conscious or unconscious. Having said that, it is not necessarily recommended that this sector be allowed to sit on juries. While theoretically, judges, criminal justice professionals, attorneys, and police officers may have the right to sit on juries – it is not expedient for them to do so, at the obvious risk of biased detriment to the defendant in a criminal trial. Evidentiary proof is not the focus of this essay, but juries which convict criminal defendants have sometimes been wrong, and when people like judges sit on jury stands, the negative outcome for sentencing (despite the possible innocence of the defendant) is nearly guaranteed. The great difficulty, however, arises in the temptation to stereotype all judges, lawyers, or police law enforcement officers who may sit on juries to automatically and pro-actively to hold a bias against persons on trial for a crime. Even if the judge or lawyer sitting on a jury has negative subconscious bias against the accused, does not necessarily predict an unfair vote against him or her without truly considering all the details of the circumstances – including the nature of the crime, intent, and record of innocence in the matter.
All things being equal in the human psyche, one American journal article on the topic of the psychological impact of jury instructional procedures, with regard to eyewitness testimony was telling. Bornstein and Hamm indicated in an academic journal article, after psychological research, presiding judges’ instructions to juries regarding eyewitness testimonies were not always clear, and that “empirical research consistently demonstrates that jurors often struggle to comprehend judges’ instructions.” This signifies that judges or lawyers sitting in juries would understand the deeper explicit meaning of instructions, thereby putting him or her in a position to informatively engage with other jurors. The issue of jury nullification is an entirely, yet worthwhile, correlating aspect. Delaune suggested that political theory pointed to UK jury nullification to “reduce tensions in the criminal justice system.” The idea in this academic article argued the futility of extremes between ultra-liberal approaches and staunchly sovereign rule of law.
The United States criminal justice system does not certainly have any credible reputation to lend any suggestions, or models worthy of emulation. In fact, Ford maintains in the Harvard Review of Psychiatry, that its country’s prison system has become the leading repository of mental-healthcare psychosis illnesses! At the end of the day, it is likely that appointing or assigning criminal justice professionals to sit on UK juries is a bad idea, in terms of biased attitudes against the defendant. On the other hand, it was explored in this essay how this sector of jurors may be more enlightened in clearly understanding presiding judges’ and magistrates’ instructions to juries, therefore being valuable inputs to the deliberation process. However, given the problems associated with un-sentenced prisoners and their treatment levels, the cards are already stacked against them – whether truly guilty, reform-able, or innocent. Meanwhile, it is the opinion of this writer that jury members who work for the criminal justice system, are unfit to serve due to the dangers of biased behaviour. Adducing absolute supportive authority is most likely impossible, but it is important to err on the side of what is realistic. One supposes it all distills to disclosure and transparency.
Works Cited
Bornstein, Brian H. and Joseph A. Hamm. “Jury Instructions on Witness Identification.” Court Review of the American Judges Association. 48:1 (2012):48-53. Web. 24 July 2016.
Bradford, Ben. “Triggers of Change to Public Confidence in The Police and Criminal Justice System: Findings from The Crime Survey for England and Wales Panel Experiment.” vol. 15, no. 1 (Feb 2015), p. 23-43. (n.d.): Web. 24 July 2016.
“Crime and Democracy.” Economist 402.8773 (2012): 70. Academic Search Complete. Web. 24 July 2016.
Delaune, Timothy A. “Jury Nullification: An Illiberal Defense of Liberty.” Studies in Law, Politics & Society 65. (2014): 57-81. Political Science Complete. Web. 21 July 2016.
Ford, Elizabeth. “First-Episode Psychosis in The Criminal Justice System: Identifying A Critical Intercept for Early Intervention.” vol. 23, no. 3 (May-Jun 2015), p. 167-175. (n.d.): Web. 23 July 2016.
Flynn, Nick. “Community Justice Files 28.” British Journal of Community Justice 10.2 (2012): 89-92. SocINDEX with Full Text. Web. 23 July 2016.
Gabbay, Zvi D. “Justifying Restorative Justice: A Theoretical Justification for the Use of Restorative Justice Practices.” Journal of Dispute Resolution 2 (2007): 349-397. Web. 23 July 2016.
Hirsch, Afua. “Law: Is the Internet destroying juries?” theguardian.com/uk. TheGuardian, 25 Jan. 2010. Web. 23 July 2016.
Hostettler, John. Criminal Jury Old and New: Jury Power from Early Times to the Present Day. Winchester: Waterside Press, 2004. Print.
Hoyle, Carolyn, and Fernanda Fonseca Rosenblatt. “Looking Back to The Future: Threats To The Success of Restorative Justice in The United Kingdom.” Victims & Offenders 11.1 (2016): 30-49. SocINDEX with Full Text. Web. 24 July 2016.
“Jury Service – Crown Prosecution Service.” Bushywood.com. Horse Sanctuary UK Limited, 2008. Web. 21 July 2016.
Jung, Tobias1, Julia2 Kaufmann, and Jenny3 Harrow. “When Funders Do Direct Advocacy: An Exploration of the United Kingdom’s Corston Independent Funders’ Coalition.” Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly 43.1 (2014): 36-56. Education Source. Web. 24 July 2016.
Kirk, David. “How Do You Solve a Problem Like Disclosure?” Journal of Criminal Law 77.4 (2013): 275-278.Academic Search Complete. Web. 24 July 2016.
“Lay people and their role in the English legal system – Magistrates and Juries.” Inbrief.co.uk. In Brief.co.uk, n.d. Web. 21 July 2016.
Lennox, Charlotte, et al. “Information Sharing Between the National Health Service and Criminal Justice System in The United Kingdom.” Journal of Forensic Nursing 8.3 (2012): 131-137 7p. CINAHL Plus with Full Text. Web. 23 July 2016.
Logan, Anne. “‘Building A New and Better Order’? Women and Jury Service in England and Wales, C. 1920–70.” Women's History Review 22.5 (2013): 701-716. Academic Search Complete. Web. 22 July 2016.
Loewenthal, Del. “The Therapeutic Use of Photographs in The United Kingdom Criminal Justice System.” vol. 17, no. 1 (Jan 2015), p. 39-56. (n.d.): Web. 24 July 2016.
Madoc-Jones, Iolo. “‘It's Always English in The Cop Shop’: Accounts of Minority Language Use in The Criminal Justice System in Wales.” vol. 52, no. 1 (Feb 2013), p. 91-107. (n.d.): Web. 24 July 2016.
McNeill, Fergus. “Transforming Rehabilitation: Evidence, Values and Ideology.” British Journal of Community Justice 11.2/3 (2013): 83-85. SocINDEX with Full Text. Web. 24 July 2016.
Oldham, James. English Common Law in the Age of Mansfield (Studies in Legal History). London: University of North Carolina Press, 2004. Print.
Popescu, Diana. “Crossing Cultures – the Jury in the English Jury System.” Bulletin scientifique en langues étrangères appliquées journal. Numero 1.1 (2013): n. pag. Web. 23 July 2016.
“Should more trials be held without juries?” BBC.co.uk. BBC, 6 May 2010. Web. 23 July 2016.
Stevenson, Caroline, et al. “Share, Don’t Hoard: The Importance of Information Exchange in 21St Century Health-Criminal Justice Partnerships.” Criminal Behaviour & Mental Health 21.3 (2011): 157-162. Academic Search Elite. Web. 24 July 2016.
Tabak, Samantha J. “Mock Jury Attitudes Towards Credibility, Age, And Guilt in A Fictional Child Sexual Assault Scenario.” vol. 66, no. 1 (Mar 2014), p. 47-55. (n.d.): Web. 24 July 2016.
Thomas, Cheryl. “Are juries fair?” Ministry of Justice Research Series 1.10 (2010): 1-87. Justice.gov.uk. Web. 22 July 2016.
Wallace, Anne, et al. “Juries and Social Media – A report prepared for the Victorian Department of Justice.” Ncsc.org. National Center for State Courts, 15 Sept. 2011. Web. 20 July 2016.
Wemmers, Jo-Anne. “Victims’ Experiences in The Criminal Justice System and Their Recovery from Crime.” vol. 19, no. 3 (Sep 2013), p. 221-233. (n.d.): Web. 21 July 2016.
Wong, Kevin. “Justice Reinvestment in an “Age of Austerity”: Developments in The United Kingdom.” vol. 9, no. 1 (Jan 2014), p. 76-99. (n.d.): Web. 24 July 2016.
