Shortcomings of the Jury System as a Democratic Instrument
Introduction
The jury system was incepted in the 16th century and introduced in England but practiced first by the pilgrims who settled in Massachusetts conducted the first jury trial in 1630. The jury system was seen as a fortification against the abuse of government power. The jurors helped the judiciary members in practicing democracy in the offices and law practice. Today, the jury panel is significant in the American history, this system works well but can be improved based on tackling the issues being faced. Jury decisions are usually based on the evidence presented, and they should be advised what evidence is to be considered for better decisions. Like any other system, there are always pros and cons. The jury panel may not comprise of a minority group this can be a Caucasian, who is on trial or a homosexual. The jurors may not have a legal background, therefore, may not comprehend complex legal documents. A few jurors may be biased, and this is a drawback to this system.
Evaluation of Jury System based on Case Analysis
One of the major disadvantages of using the jury in the court ruling can be attributed to the tampering of the jurors by the judge or the lawyers. Regardless of the fact that the jurors are often regarded in high esteem and are critically selected, there have been cases of jury tampering, which affects the verdict of the case. The use of the jury system in the US indicates that there is a high correlation of the decisions given, which show that there is effectiveness in the system. However, there are cases that have proved to show some of the disadvantages of using the system in deciding the cases. The jury system has various factors that can be linked to the different verdicts that affect the outcome of the cases and the law.
With reference to jury tampering, the evaluation of Bushel’s Case (1670) 124 E.R. 1006 indicates one disadvantage of the use of the jury system. Based on the facts of the case, the jury found the Quakers guilty of speaking on religious matters outside the required places in England. The judge ordered that the jury should further discuss the verdict that the court would accept. In the process, the jurors were locked up without food or water, and protesters were gagged. Finally, the members returned with a ‘not guilty’ plea, which may have been caused by the circumstances they were subjected. Such cases of tampering affect the verdict that is given by the members, hence reducing the credibility of the process.
A further analysis of the way through which the shortcomings outweigh the advantages can be indicated by the H v. Ministry of Defence; CA [1991] 2 All ER 834, [1991] 2 WLR 1192. The case suggests that the circumstances under which the jury is used affect the outcome of the case. The case analysis shows that the initial ruling of the judge was for the plaintiff, whereas the appeal by the defendant indicates the use of bias cases was against the Act in the Ministry of Defence. The disadvantage in the case can be noted in the limited use of the democratic factor that has an implication on the outcome of the case. In most cases, the use of the jury can prove to be effective based on the limited democratic aspects in the case, hence denying justice to the people.
In the case of Hanif and Khan v UK (2012) 55 EHRR 16, the entrants were on trial for conspiracy to supply heroin. Hanif disputed with the police evidence claiming that there was a third person, who left the drugs in his car. The police argued that the applicant's car was on observation all through. Once this evidence was presented one of the jurors came forward that he knew one of the police witnesses for he was a serving officer, he finished to be discharged, but the trial judge declined. Many jurisdictions do not allow police officers to be part of the jury, but the Criminal Justice Act of 2003 had amended the fact. The limitations of the members allowed in the jury affect the delivery of justice as different perspectives are needed in making the ruling. The police officers were acquainted with the matter of dispute in the evidence presented. Hanif had not been tried by an impartial jury which was in violation of Article 6 § 1.This is because the member of the jury who was a serving officer was most probably bias.
Conclusion
The jury system has existed for an extended period, and it is still being challenged with the effectiveness of justice delivery. The changes in the laws have affected the application of the efficient system as there are multiple factors that need to be considered. It is the most accepted procedure for citizens feel they have contributed to ensuring justice has been served and that the government is for the people. This process can be more efficient if the stumbling blocks are addressed, for example, biases. Jurors should be done for a background check before trying each case so that there is no conflict of interest.
Bibliography
Books
Jacqueline Martin and Lancer, Denis, AQA Law for AS (6 ed, Hodder Education, 2015).
Jeffrey B. Abramson, We, the jury: the jury system and the ideal of democracy: with a new preface. (Illustrated Edition, Harvard University Press, 2000).
Cases
Bushel’s Case [1670] 124 E.R. 1006
H v. Ministry of Defence; CA [1991] 2 All ER 834, [1991] 2 WLR 1192
Hanif and Khan v UK [2012] 55 EHRR 16
Shari Seidman Diamond and Ryken, Andrea, ‘The Modern American Jury: A One Hundred Year Journey,’ Juricature 96(6), 315-322.
