Jury Trial Analysis
A jury trial is a legal proceeding whereby a case is presented to a jury to make decisions and findings of fact and reach a verdict which is later applied by a judge. A jury is a group of people sworn in to hear, judge, and give a verdict on a given case. Jury trials are regularly used in serious criminal cases. The work of a jury is to scrutinize the evidence provided in the courtroom and agree on whether beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime in question. Jury trials are mainly used in serious criminal cases. Their work is to find the facts on the case so that the judge can determine the law on the case. Jurors are supposed to remain impartial and unbiased as they examine the evidence then give the verdict (Steven, 1989).
The United Kingdom of the Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) consists of four main countries which are England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In the United Kingdom there are three legal systems. The English law which is mainly applied in England and Wales, the Northern Ireland law which is applied in Northern Ireland, and finally Scots law applied in Scotland. The UK law has four principle sources which are the common law, European law, legislation and the European convention on Human rights. The common law came as a result of development of the legal systems in the UK. The trial by jury justice system first came to Britain after the Norman Conquest. The British has termed this system as outdated and time consuming since it is dated back to the Norman Conquest. Although the trial by jury has always been considered to be the fairest and unbiased system, it has many disadvantages than advantages and a state like modern Britain has opted to scrap it off.
In Britain offences are divided into three categories, indictment only, either way offences and lastly summary offences. Indictable only offences are offences which are termed as serious crimes for example murder, rape and manslaughter. These types of offences are heard in crown courts. The either way offences include burglary and theft which are heard by a magistrate and the magistrate can also recommend them to be heard in crown courts. Lastly, summary offences are offences like road traffic offences which are mainly heard in the magistrate’s courts. In Britain, the magistrates courts have limited sentencing powers to custodial sentences of 12 months while the crown courts have unlimited powers and can convict up to life imprisonment. In the UK currently, indictable only crimes are heard by a judge and a jury consisting of 12 jurors which is the main mode of trial in the crown courts. The role of the jury in the UK has been to decide the guilt or innocence of the defendant through deliberation and give a verdict through evidence produced, facts and findings. Jurors are not questioned after a verdict has been given.
The white paper, Justice for All proposed reforms of the justice system in the England and Wales whereby they proposed the removal of a trial by jury. Trial by jury has no place in Britain since the British government evolved its laws and suspended the jury trial system which was later passed into law. The British government adopted a proposal in the Criminal Justice Bill clause 36 that recommended that defendants apply for a trial by a judge alone. The defendant is to be tried by a judge alone in the crown court with the absence of a jury. Jurors are very expensive and it is hard for all the citizens to afford paying all the expenses and the British government has decided to do away with it since there rare other alternatives like a judge. Jurors spend a lot of money and time because they take a lot of time to deliver on a case. Furthermore, a trial by jury takes a lot of time for the case to end and it has wasted many people’s time and if the judge takes the case, it takes less time for the defendants to know their fate. Jurors spend a lot of money and it is time consuming yet there are other inexpensive, faster and very efficient ways to handle cases compared to it. Jurors have lost competence in the UK as the criminal justice bill has dismissed them so as to give its citizens the right to apply for a judge and also to make their cases to be heard on time to avoid wasting time with the jury trial process.
The jury trial has been proven to be a very controversial element in the UK and Wales criminal justice system since many people have continuously argued that the jurors are inexperienced and most of them are uneducated. If we look at the jury selection process in Britain as long as one is registered as a voter, he or she can stand a chance to be a juror. It is very unimaginable that a group of 12 chosen ordinary men can decide the fate of a person yet they do not have any knowledge on the law and it is assumed that they will get instructions from the judge, this is not possible (Wagner,1989).. This has made the government in Britain to scrap it off because jurors are not competent since they do not have any knowledge on criminality and thus they are not eligible to decide the fate of an individual. It is also unfair to the defendants because they are exposed to injustice since their fate remains in the hands of 12 people who are not even qualified. Lack of Jurors’ legal knowledge on criminal matters makes prosecutors manipulative and they easily convince the jurors to believe their assertions very easily and this puts the trial at risk.
Jury trials have no place in modern Britain because it has been proven that Jurors commit summary errors before giving their verdicts and they might end up sentencing innocent people and even also acquitting criminals. Most jurors make mistakes due to lack of understanding of instructions given to them by a judge yet their verdict is not questioned. Due to lack of training, most jurors have very little knowledge on matters of the law thus they are not fit to give a verdict (Jeffrey, 1994). The UK government wants to avoid such errors by giving their citizens the best justice system they deserve.
The criminal justice bill enacted by the British government proposed the removal of juries in fraud, serious and complex cases which also explains that the jury trial has no place in modern Britain. The Auld report suggested that instead of a jury trial, defendants should be tried by a judge and maybe two lay members who decide the facts and law since they are educated and familiar with the law. Complex cases cannot be left in the hands of the jurors since most of them are not educated and have no idea of the law so a judge is preferred since that is their profession. Complex cases bring confusion to the jury because they lack the appropriate knowledge to handle the cases and thus the cases should be left for the judges because they know the legal process that needs to be followed.
A trial by jury does not stand a chance in Modern Britain simply because most jurors come to a conclusion because they feel tired and want to end the case which is the opposite of what the government wants for its citizens. The main reason why there is a justice system is that justice to be served to all yet if the jurors feel over burdened and ends the cases, it fails the justice system. Getting rid of jurors is the best way for justice for all. The jurors do not have what it takes to give verdicts for serious cases and so prosecution pares down the facts and findings in the case to make it manageable and easier for the jury so a to give a verdict earlier which is unfair to the justice for all. In this case, justice is never served because they will end up sentencing innocent people or acquitting criminals which is risking the lives of the citizens in Britain. This is the reason why jury trials are impossible in modern Britain because the criminal justice bill suggests justice for all and in this case, there is no justice for all because the case is ended prematurely by the jurors so that they can go home.
Most jurors are easily swayed by the lawyers or prosecutors and that is why the jury system does not stand a chance in the modern Britain. Fast talking lawyers easily sway the jurors since they do not understand many aspects of the law and if they are influenced, justice is not served which is not the agenda of the UK justice system. The justice system is put in place so that all people should get justice and this is the opposite with the trial by jury system. Most prosecutors take advantage of the jurors by manipulating them because they understand very well that they have no information on legal matters. The lawyers will always make sure that the verdict given at the end of the case, favors their side. They work ways so that they win an if the jury system is still in place, many cases will be judged unfairly because the jurors lack the appropriate legal information to deal with criminal cases.
A jury trial may have a race and gender problem. Most jurors are stereotyped and they favor some sides. There have been so many cases where jurors give verdicts depending on race. Many studies done have shown that jurors comprising of whites favor whites than blacks which is against the justice rule so in order to avoid this incidents in future, a jury trial should be scrapped off. Some jurors have always had a problem with gender whereby the sentence people of a certain gender and acquit others from a given gender and an occurrence of this should be avoided and that is why they do not stand a chance on the modern Britain because they do not want prejudice and want equality in their justice system. Many studies done on jury trials have revealed that many jurors are racists and they tend to favor people from their country.
Recent research done by Godfrey (1997) on jury trials reveals that, many jurors fall victims of their social, religious and cultural biasness. Further research revealed that they are not in any capacity to decide the controversies between persons since they do not have any knowledge on criminal matters and give their verdicts depending on the defendant’s background. Jurors may give a verdict depending on the defendant’s religion and if the jurors consist of people from the same religion, they will always favor the person who is from their own religion. They are also known to give verdicts on the defendant’s cultural background instead of looking at the evidence provided. Most people may come from cultures with criminal backgrounds and this is not a reason for them to be deemed criminals and most jurors base on that while giving out their verdicts. If jurors continuously give verdicts depending on the defendant’s religion or culture, they fail the justice system because there is no justice served in the case.
Jurors’ opinions are also swayed by their personalities. During the deliberation process, all the 12 jurors are expected to give out their opinions on the case and this is where their strong personalities impose their opinions which highly affect the verdict given. Some jurors tend to follow the decisions of others because they believe in their opinions and this affects the end of the case. Jurors with strong personalities always make the last decisions because they sometimes undermine the others. If there is such a case, justice will not be served and this is what the modern Britain is trying to avoid in its justice system by scrapping it off.
Most jurors are a subject to human feelings and emotions and they can give verdicts through emotions or pity. There are several cases where jurors become emotional and give verdicts out of their feelings and this is against the justice rule where the defendant has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty or innocent. Some female jurors especially if they are parents giving verdicts on cases like rape will always favor the victims because most of them become very emotional especially if they try to imagine what happened has happened to their own children. This is against the criminal justice bill in Britain which advocates for justice for all. Furthermore, there are jurors who pity the defendants and this makes them advocate for their acquittal which is not justice to the victims. This is why the jurors do not stand a chance in Modern Britain because if they act on emotions, justice will not be served to all and getting rid of them will help to the attaining of justice for all. Comparably, a judge will not have any pity for anyone but will use the knowledge they have on criminal matters to give their verdict.
A trial by jury has also been proven to be incompetent in the UK because they have delaying tactics so as to wear out the other side. Jurors take too long to give a verdict due to personal reasons and mostly because they want to favor one side, they will waste a lot of time for the other side so that they can get tired and give up on the case (Leonard, 1999). Some of them will waste time on the case because the cases are complex to them and they do not have the needed knowledge to handle the cases. In addition some jurors take a longer time to handle a case so that they can be paid more and this is exploiting the person paying for their fee. Most of them do not care about justice but just waste time on the case so that they can earn more. This is against the criminal justice rule which advocates for justice for all because they will take long hours so as to earn more yet they have already reached a conclusion.
Jury trials in the UK are losing significance because there are reported cases of jurors searching for evidence and communicating with the defendants on social networks. An example is juror Joanne Frail’s case who was jailed for using face book to contact the defendant. This is putting the system at risk since prejudicial information might end up in the hands of the wrong people. Frail contacted a defendant in a multi-million pounds trial which is a very serious case that needs to be handled with care. If jurors in the UK behave in the way Joanne behaved there is no need for jury trials because information will be leaked. In addition, if jurors search for evidence in social networks, it will affect the evidence and thus justice will not be served to both the defendant and the victim. Moreover, it is a threat to the system because the trial is put at risk since the jurors end up distributing prejudicial information to the public. Looking for information in social networks also put the jury system’s integrity in danger and so many people end up advocating for its removal. Through this, the trial by jury system has no future in the modern Britain.
In essence, a trial by jury is the most common system that is being used even in the United States. Unfortunately, it is losing its significance slowly by slowly as states like Britain are advocating for its removal so that it can be replaced by a trial by a judge system. This system has no place in modern Britain because the British government is advocating for justice for all and they believe that jurors are incompetent when it comes to delivering on cases.
References
Wagner, W., 1989. Art of Advocacy: Jury Selection. California: Times mirror Books.
Steven, B., 1989. Trial by Jury. New York: American Lawyers Books.
Jeffrey, A., 1994. We the Jury: The Jury System and the Ideal of Democracy. New York: Basic Books.
Godfrey, D. L., 1997. We the Jury: The Impact of Jurors on Our Basic Freedoms. New York: Prometheus Books.
Leonard, W. L., 1999. The Palladium of Justice: Origins of Trial by Jury. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee.
