Trial by jury has no place in modern Britain - Essay Example

? Trial by jury has no place in modern Britain Trial by jury has no place in modern Britain Introduction The system of jury trial has been relatedto the common law. In fact, Norman kings have promoted the specific process sending their judges ‘to preside at jury trials’ (Spooner 2006, p.88). In the above context, the objectivity of the court was ensured through the following practice: the public could choose ‘four people to sit with them’ (Spooner 2006, p.88). Magna Carta has enforced the specific rule in order to ensure that judge will not influence the jury (Spooner 2006). Saxons did not accept the interference of king’s judges with the jury, aiming to keep the court independence from the ruling of the king (Spooner 2006). Today, a similar approach can be used for justifying the non-appropriateness of jury trial in English law. Due to its structure, the English legal system ensures the objectivity in trial, at least at higher level than other legal systems worldwide where the use of jury in trials often causes severe problems in the court procedure. Current paper focuses on the reasons for which trial by jury is not appropriate for the English courts, at least not anymore. Relevant literature is used in order to prove that trial by jury should be abolished in the English legal system, since its drawbacks have become more than its benefits. 2. Trial by jury – overview and characteristics The presence of juries in trial has been, traditionally, considered as a measure for ensuring equality in terms of law, i.e. to ensure that the decision of the court will be fair both for the perpetrator and the public, meaning that no punishment will be imposed unless the person considered as the perpetrator has, indeed, committed the offense involved. It is for this reason that in trial with juries the defendant is given plenty of time in order to present all the evidence available; in this way it is ensured that the crime will be fairly and appropriately evaluated by the jury. In practice, the participation of juries in trials has led to ‘verdicts, which have protected the personal rights’ (Hosterttler 2004, p.155). However, it cannot be stated that trial by jury always lead to the correct verdict or that juries ‘protect the law’ (Hosterttler 2004, p.155). Such perception cannot be acceptable taking into consideration the involvement of other individuals in critical parts of each trial, especially the judge in directing the trial and the lawyers in presenting/ analyzing the evidence involved. From this point of view it could be noted that juries are not indispensable part of criminal law. In the English legal system this view could be also applied, especially since in the particular system, due to its structure and its principles is quite difficult to lead to failures in regard to the evaluation of evidence, minimizing the risks for wrong verdicts. Currently, criminal trials in the English legal system are based on the trial jury, but not necessarily. In minor offences, these that are heard before the magistrate’s courts, the offender has the right to choose between ‘a trial before the magistrate court and a trial by jury before the Crown Court’ (Erastus-Obilo 2009, p.41). On the other hand, in more serious offences, the offender does not have such option. The trial is heard necessarily ‘by judge and the jury’ (Erastus – Obilo 2009, p.41). Moreover, the power of jury as factors determining the cases cannot be ignored. In fact, the verdict cannot replace the judgment of the court, but the verdict is the basis for the development of the judgment. From this point of view, the current role of jury in the English legal system is critical. 3. Benefits and implications of the trial by jury The use of the jury system in England has been combined with the principle of liberty; more specifically, the presence of juries in trials in England reflected the liberty of people to participate in important issues related to the law, which, as its name notes, is common among all people in terms of its accessibility. On the other hand, the jury system in England indicates the high educational level of citizens; the latter are able to understand all the aspects of an offence but also its potential consequences in accordance with existing law (Cairns et al. 2002). This sense of freedom and of social power that the jury system offers has been the key reason for its use in English courts for many decades. At the next level, the existence of juries in the trial denotes the efforts of the English law to protect the rights (which have been also violated in the context of the English legal system, as the process for establishing the existence of a right can be quite difficult in the British law (Forsyth et al. 1994). On the other hand, the role of the jury trial in the objectivity of the court cannot be ignored. Due to this role, the efforts of legislators in New York to abolish the right to a jury trial were strongly opposed by the public, leading finally to the cancellation of the relevant proposal (Litan 1993). The benefits of the jury trial were reflected in the radical increase in 1750s of such practices in cases heard in the courts of New York (Litan 1993). In Britain a different practice was held; the right to a jury trial was often denied to the offender, a fact that has led to the deterioration of the relationship between Britain and USA in 1770s (Litan 1993). During that period severe conflicts were developed between Americans and British regarding the right of the former to ask for a jury trial ‘both in civil and in criminal cases’ (Litan 1993, p.35). 4. Why trial by jury has no place in modern Britain In order to identify the potential value of jury in modern Britain it would be necessary to refer to the current problems of jury trials in the specific country; then reference should be made to the terms under which the jury trial should be abolished. The existence of juries in trials in Britain has caused significant oppositions; at a first level, many efforts have been made ‘for abolishing the right of offenders to opt for jury trial’ (Cairns et al. 2002, p.2). On the other hand, the increased power of the decision of jury in certain cases, for instance in the case of libel, has caused conflicts in the context of the English legal system as to whether the trial by jury should be abolished or not (Cairns et al. 2002, p.2). Another issue appeared is whether an alternative solution could be chosen, meaning for instance to allow the offender, under certain circumstances, to ask for jury trial. Moreover, in Scotland the trial by jury, even regarding civil cases, has been used for political reasons, i.e. in order to show the unity between Britain and Scotland (Cairns et al. 2002, p.2). At the next level, the understanding of the potential role of juries in common law is necessary in order to check whether in the particular system of law the presence of juries is a prerequisite or not for the appropriate development of the trial. The comparison with the civil law system could help to identify the differences in the role of juries in civil and common law and to check whether the abolishment of juries in the common law could harm its power towards the civil law. In accordance with Merryman et al. (2007) the common law trials are characterized by concentration, in the sense that all evidence required for the support of the case has to be gathered and presented before the court in the initial hearing of the case. Such issue does not exist in the civil law trials where the evidence of the case can be inserted in the case’s file at a later stage of the trial, i.e. the civil law lawyer is not stressed to gather and analyze all evidence during the first hearing of the case (Merryman et al. 2007). From this point of view it could be noted that the presence of juries in the common law trials would be necessary for ensuring the appropriate interpretation of evidence and the lack of potential misinterpretations in regard to the material related to each case. However, at this point, the following issue appears: the necessity of juries in the English courts set in doubt the potential of the judges to evaluate appropriately the evidence brought for examination in the context of its case. In other words, the presence of juries in trial can threaten the trust to the courts of the country involved; this issue, that is the trust to the country’s legal system is considered as quite important, reflecting the relationship between the citizens and the state. For this reason, the use of trial jury within a particular legal system should be carefully reviewed; in case that the benefits offered by the trial jury are less than those achieved through the abolishment of trial jury, then the specific practice should be rather eliminated (Jacobstein et al. 1998). Also, as proved above, through the literature published in the particular issue, the English legal system has traditionally opposed to the presence of juries in trials, a phenomenon common even since 1760s with the strong conflicts between Americans and British regarding the use of juries in trial, as already analyzed previously. Under these terms, the current use of jury trial in the English court could not contribute in the improvement of the system, if such issue would appear. Instead, the use of juries in trials could be only used for other reasons, as for instance for political reasons, for indicating the support to another common law country using the trial jury system (as Scotland did, see the study of Cairns et al. 2002 above). On the other hand, in the common law procedure the methodology of the examination of evidence before the court, as explained above, ensures the detailed review of the case, i.e. that material related to the case is analytically examined and evaluated. In this context, there would be no need for juries to exist, since the presence of juries is also related to the following fact: in trials with juries the verdict is not always related to the evidence but rather to the methodology through which the evidence is presented (Wendell 2009). Another issue related to the presence of juries in trials is the following one: juries can, under certain circumstances, reach a verdict, which is in opposition with existing law; this phenomenon is known as ‘jury nullification’ (Gastil et al 2010, p.29) and it can appear in the following two cases: either the juries had misinterpreted the law failing to understand the actual meaning of relevant legal orders or they have reached this verdict because the existing law did not regulate the case under examination. In the above case, the jury had the role of legislator, creating a legal rule in favour or against the offender. The above practice can be quite risky especially since the case law is the basis of the common law system (Oakland 2011); therefore, a precedent can be established and used in other cases where, however, there are no similar circumstances justifying the establishment of unique legal order for resolving the case. In the study of Jenkins (2011) reference is made to the verdicts of jury as important factors for determining the form of the common law, which is gradually developed through the precedent. 5. Conclusion The value of jury in the English legal system can be strongly criticized. Of course, currently, juries in trials developed in English courts help towards the reduction of time required for the completion of each case. However, the literature published in this subject has not proved that the presence of juries lead to the increased credibility of the court’s judgment neither that it helps promoting justice, i.e. equality before the courts. On the contrary, it has been made clear that jury trial can have important implications, which are at such level that they can justify the exclusion of jury from trials. Indeed, it has been explained that in the context of the English legal system the jury trial practice cannot particularly promote the principles of law, nether it can help for guaranteeing the fairness of the trial. Thus, the return of the English legal system in its prior form, referring for example in the 1770s where no trial jury was available in English courts, could be considered as justified. References Cairns, J., McLeod, G. (2002). The dearest birth right of the people of England: the jury in the history of the common law. Hart Publishing. Erastus-Obilo, B. (2009). Reason Curve, Jury Competence, and the English Criminal Justice System: The Case for a 21st Century Approach. Florida: Universal-Publishers. Forsyth, W., Morgan, A. (1994). History of trial by jury. The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. Gastil, J., Deess, P., Weiser, P., Simmons, C. (2010). The jury and democracy: how jury deliberation promotes civic engagement and political participation. New York: Oxford University Press Hosterttler, J. (2004). The criminal jury old and new: jury power from early times to the present day. Winchester: Waterside Press. Jacobstein, M., Mersky, R. (1998). Jury size: articles and bibliography from the literature of law and the social and behavioral sciences. Wm. S. Hein Publishing. Jenkins, J. (2011). The American Courts: A Procedural Approach. Jones & Bartlett Learning. Litan, R. (1993). Verdict: assessing the civil jury system. Brookings Institution Press. Merryman, J., Perez-Perdomo, R. (2007). The civil law tradition: an introduction to the legal systems of Europe and Latin America. Stanford University Press. Oakland, J. (2011). British Civilization: An Introduction. Oxon: Taylor & Francis. Spooner, L. (2006). An Essay on the Trial by Jury. Middlesex: Echo Library Wendell, O., (2009). The Common Law. New York: Cosimo Inc. Read More