British Institution of Jury Trial - Essay Example

?Society appears to have an attraction to jury trial which is emotional or sentimental rather than logical Introduction It was always an accepted fact that the much-idolised British institution of jury trial (‘12 good men and true’) was at the core of UK legal system, and thus was held in great presage right from the time of its initiation.1 Always commended as a strong sign of democracy within the realms of UK criminal laws, it symbolised the very essence of public assurance, essential for defining the ethical permissibility of the existent criminal system and continuing with support not only from the political and legal system, but also from the general civic populace. Lately, despite the historical importance of the system of trial by jury, it has been facing a good deal of criticism. The detractors of the jury institution feel that this entire system is a form of solecism, leading to a waste of public funds, and exploited by criminals for their own benefit. Furthermore, the individual jurors, chosen randomly, often face a lot of pressure in the form of intricate and lengthy case proceedings, which are unjustified and often lead to negative impact on the case outcome. There have been issues as regards the jury expertise on objectivity of decisions taken, as some experts argued that jury trials tend to be more emotional or sentimental (hence biased) in nature, rather than being logical, thus, attracting more than the due share of media and society attention.2 In fact, Penny Darbyshire describes the jury system as “an anti-democratic, irrational, and haphazard legislator, whose erratic and secret decisions run counter to the rule of law.”3 Such problems as pointed by the critics are inherent within the UK jury trial system, leading to demands for bringing in radical reforms in the UK legal policies and for abolishment of this many centuries old celebrated institution of criminal justice. The role of the juries within the legal system translates to the simple fact that legally unqualified people (the layman) are given significance within the highly specialised profession of law, and their assistance taken to provide justice to the public. The chief function of the jury is to listen to the facts presented during the case proceedings and based on these facts produce a verdict (in terms of case resolution within criminal/ civil cases), of guilty or not guilty. This essay will examine the role of the jury and explore the advantages and disadvantages of the system to seek whether Roskill had rightfully claimed that jury trials do not deliver justice, as they are more sentimental and emotionally driven, instead of being logical in nature, and tend to attract more media and society attraction than necessary. Discussion The jury system in UK Jury system in UK has been in vogue for more than 1,000 years, and according to some reports even existed before the Norman Conquest.4 The jury system, thus, always played a significant part in balancing the British legal system. In the present legal scenario, jury independence is given a great deal of importance, where many feel that juries should not be meddled with or pressurised, while deciding a case. The position of the juries as the only arbiters in a case was evident in the famous Bulshell case of 1670, 5 and in the more recent R v Mc Kenna (1960).6 In both the cases, the independent roles of juries were highlighted, where they had acted separately from the judge, while taking a decision. While selecting a jury, an official at the Crown Court selects jurors randomly, from the official data system, and even though only a 12-member jury is needed for a case hearing, more members are generally selected, to provide for any absentee jury members.7 In England and Wales there are three forms of criminal offences, where ‘summary’ offences (ones considered as being of minimal seriousness) can be tried only at the Magistrates’ Court, with two to three magistrates in presence.8 Criminal offences that are more serious in nature and categorised as ‘indictable,’ are tried by in the crown court under a judge and a 12-member jury. In between these two types are cases that may be tried through either of the two processes, that is, either under the magistrates, or by the judge and the jury.9 However, figures reveal that only around 1% of the cases have their verdict announced by the jury, while Magistrates’ Court solves nearly 95% of the cases.10 Even with such low numbers of jury trials under the present law, the controversy over the abolishment of the jury system persists, within UK legal system To qualify as a jury there are certain terms, specified in the Juries Act 1974, where one “must be between 18 and 70 years of age, have lived in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man for any period of at least 5 years since the age of 13 and be eligible to vote in parliamentary or local elections.”11 Thus, here it is clear that any able member from the civic populace can be appointed as a jury member, irrespective of whether he or she has any legal expertise, a symbol of appropriately functioning democracy in the country. Exposition for the jury system (advantages of jury system) The terms democracy and jury system have a strong connection, as both are based on the democratic principle that makes it necessary to have a connection between the general view of the common people and the country’s law. Basic democracy of a country demands that the legal system like any other institutional systems must necessarily incorporate choices, perspectives, and preferences of its own citizens that it aims to serve. Through its rightful application, the jury system tries to prevent the legal application of suppressive or abhorred laws by forming a sort of a filter, with the main idea behind the system being that a group of randomly chosen twelve individuals would defer from applying any oppressive and execrated law than a judge (a legal professional), who may not share the same perspective as a common man. The integration of community and social values within the criminal law system remains one of the most persuasive expositions for continuing with the present form of jury system within UK criminal laws. It was in this context, Lord Devlin’s contention that that the jury system serves to act like a ‘little parliament’ seems quite apt 12. The juries have been accorded the power to mix facts and law, and though they are expected to base their decisions only on the facts (evidences) presented during the case proceedings, they are authorised to be guided by the “prejudices of their affections or passions.”13 They also have the authority to acquit a person, when they feel that the facts presented are convincing enough for them to exonerate the person (where they feel a punishment would be unfair) and override the rule and law.14 This authority of the jury to acquit a person or the dispensing power also referred to as the ‘nullification’ by jury has attracted much criticism, with the detractors claiming that a jury cannot be given the legitimate right to take over the parliamentary function. The focus of the jury should remain on deciding whether a person is guilty or not simply on the basis of factual evidence, with no space for emotional or sentimental considerations, within the realms of a modern legal system.15 This sentiment is in line Penny Darbyshire description of the jury system as anti-democratic body (mentioned earlier), and agrees with Lord Justice Auld’s sentiments where he opined that this power of jury nullification was “more than illogicality” and a direct offense to present legal system in UK. 16 This form of reasoning that strongly opposes the jury system on being illogical and offensive to the rule of law in UK is indeed compelling. However, a closer look into the concept of a trial by jury, especially in the context of overriding any form of political pressure, the power of nullification forms to be a necessary element for acting as a check on an authoritative government. This was evident in the case R. v Ponting [1985] 17 where the jury even under governmental pressure restrained itself from applying Section 2 under Official Secrets Act 1911. In this case the defendant revealed that he had leaked information marked as classified (in contradiction to the 1911 Act), which brought forth the fact UK Government in that cases had presented the Parliament with false information. Despite judiciary and governmental pressure, where the jury was asked to bring in a verdict of ‘guilty,’ as the defendant had confessed to his crime, the jury declared the defendant as ‘not guilty. This case clearly showed the benefits of a jury system that managed to coerce the law to follow what the common people willed. It is what Almot, had once opined about the functioning of the jury that displays, “subtle process at play, day by day, wherein the beauty of the jury lies, in which the system ensures the law will conform to what is the ordinary man’s idea of what is just.”18 Since the legal system is generally seen as an elitist social institution with a general opaque way of functioning, public confidence in the system tends to be low as regards meting out social justice and the trial by jury system is the right mechanism to bring the aspect of common man’s viewpoint into criminal laws. This allows the society to form its own accepted norms of equity and justice, and makes it the ethical arbiter of crime.19 Thus allowing the citizens to enter the legal processes as jurors with formidable powers to even act against the Judges (a part of the ‘British establishment’) ruling, is indeed a score for the democratic processes of a country. Another area of expressed concern is that the verdicts pronounced are often biased, as the jurors often depend on their intuition, or ‘prejudices of their affections or passions,’ or even some other form of unhealthy form of external pressure.20 Reports also claim that sometimes jury verdicts are greatly affected by media publicity rather being based on facts.21 Undoubtedly, these areas form to be an area of concern, but the advantages of the jury system cannot be overlooked in an attempt to abolish an entire system that has been in place for more than a thousand years. The primary advantage of this system is that it creates a balanced mix of people from various segments of the society (includes people from all races and classes), ranging between ages of 18 to 70, allowing greater chances for fair verdicts and an equitable legal system. Disadvantages of the trial by jury system Jury bias: Deliberations on the part of the jury, is difficult to speculate and measure and it can only be assumed whether inappropriate and irrelevant factors were taken into consideration by the jurors will giving a verdict.22 Some new researches, have shown that there are chances that the jurors may be indeed be unduly affected by facts that has been asked to be ignored, thus giving it more value than the actual logical facts.23 Furthermore, the researches also showed that juries often give undue attention to prior records of convictions of the defendant,24 and other irrelevant factors that vary from unattractiveness of the witness in prosecution25 to the allurement of counsel members.26 Such influence of irrelevant and inappropriate is has been recorded often in cases that involve rape trial under the influence of intoxicants.27 Here the chief element to be considered is the lack of consent, however researches reveal that often stereotypical notions of socially construed male female appropriate behaviour tends to influence the jury as they prepare their verdicts.28 Such reliance on inappropriate aspects, irrelevant for factual case considerations, often results in colouring the thought processes of the jurors, leading to a negative influence on the trial and a biased verdict.29 Influence of Pre-trial media publicity: In modern society, where the media is ever hungry for highlighting glamorous cases for increasing readership or viewership quotient of their TV channels or newspapers, often conduct trials of their own by presenting materials related to the case.30 The jurors, continually pre-exposed to such publicised case materials in the media, may be unduly influenced by them, and while deliberating even consider the facts. In such cases, where there are pre-trials conducted by the media, there may be a hostility drive aimed at the defendant, which can prove to be a major hindrance in the way of a fair trial. To tackle such cases the Law of Contempt in UK attempts to discipline the media and to take due action against false media propaganda.31 Besides these, the jurors are often accused of being inexperienced and incompetent for delivering logical verdicts, as they come from the general public that may not have any prior experience in matters of law,32 and the detractors feel that such juror inexperience may bias the nature of the judgement. Thus, recent researchers on the disadvantages of a jury system portray a picture where we find that Roskill, to a certain extent, had managed to sum up the fallacies of the present jury system. Conclusion Abolishment of the jury trial system to counter the aforementioned problems appears a rather radical reform that may not be entirely necessary; instead, the government may opt for bringing in reforms that aim at correcting the present fallacies of the system. If indeed the government aims at removing the jury institution, then there can be established a system where a panel of judges comprising of a number of experienced members of the judiciary would conduct the trial, instead of the jury panel (though there are chances that in such cases viewpoint of the common people would be disregarded completely). The other option is to conduct the trial under a single judge that be more cost effective with chances of a more just verdict. However, from an overall perspective, the juries play an important part within UK democracy, and its legal systems, and instead of abolishing the system, it would be better to selectively train jury members and use such experienced jurors, for conducting criminal cases. References Amlot, R. (Q.C.) ‘Leave the Jury Alone’ in, The Effectiveness of Juries and the Use of the Civil Courts in the Control of Crime, Med. Sci. Law, 38(2), 9 (1998), 123, 123-125. Bushel's Case (1670) 124 E.R. 1006. Cownie, F., Bradney,A., and Burton, M. English legal system in context. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Darbyshire, P., What can we learn from published jury research? Findings for the Criminal Courts Review 2001, Crim. L. Rev 970, 973, 2001. Denning. A., Lord. What next in the law. London: Butterworths, 1982.  Devlin,P. Trial by Jury. London: Stevens, 1956. Dion, K., Berscheid, E., and Walster, E. What is Beautiful is Good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 24, 285-90, 1972. Devons, E. Serving As A Juryman In Britain. The Modern Law Review, 28: 561– 570, 1965. Elliot, C. and Quinn, F., English Legal System: essential cases and materials. Essex: Pearson Education, 2009.   Finch, E., and Munro, V. Juror Stereotypes and Blame Attribution in Rape Cases Involving Intoxicants. 45 Br. J Criminol., 2005, 25-38. Fraud trials, Roskill Report, HC Deb 13 February 1986 vol. 91 cc 1148-85, retrieved from, http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1986/feb/13/fraud-trials-roskill-report [Accessed 7th December 2011] Geddes, A. Juries aren’t delivering justice, the Guardian, retrieved from, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/mar/27/ukcrime.jurytrials (Accessed 5th December 2011) Lord Justice Auld, Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales, 2001. Matthews, R., Hancock , L., and Briggs, D. Jurors' perceptions, understanding, confidence and satisfaction in the jury system: a study in six. Courts, Home office online Report 05/04, retrieved from http://library.npia.police.uk/docs/hordsolr/rdsolr0504.pdf [accessed 5th December 2011] R. v Dean of St. Asaph (1784) 4 Dougl. 73. R v McKenna [1960] 2 WLR 306. R v Ponting [1985] Crim LR 318: 306. Roberts, P., and Zuckerman, A. Criminal Evidence, Oxford: OUP, 2004. Robert , J. Judicial Perspectives in Serious Fraud Cases—The Present Status of and Problems Posed by Case Management Practices, Jury Selection Rules, Juror Expertise, Plea Bargaining and Choice of Mode of Trial. Criminal Law Review, 255, 2007.   Sanders, A., and Young, R., Criminal Justice. Oxford University Press, 2007. Slapper, G., and Kelly, D. Sourcebook on the English Legal System. London: Cavendish, 2001. Slapper, G., and Kelly, D. The English Legal System (12th ed.). London: Routledge, 2011. Smith, J. Is Ignorance Bliss? Could Jury Trial Survive Investigation? Med. Sci. Law, Vol. 38 (2), 98, 104, 1998. The Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, section 17, Schedule I, legislation.gov.uk, Retrieved from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/43 [accessed 7th December 2011] Thomas, C. Diversity and fairness in the Jury System. Ministry of Justice Research Series, 2007, retrieved from, http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/PagesfromJuries-report2-07C1.pdf (Accessed 6th December 2011) Vidmar, N. World Jury systems. Oxford: OUP, 2000.   Worley S. What part is played by Juries and lay magistrates in the resolution of civil and criminal cases?, retrieved from http://www.peterjepson.com/law/LAS-5%20Worley.htm (Accessed 8th December 2011) Read More