Why Trial by Jury Should Be Retained - Essay Example

?Why trial by jury should be retained Contents. i. introduction ii. Facts and statistics on juries iii. Objectives of the review iv. How juries operate v. Jury verdict and theory vi. Key importance of juries vii. Conclusion viii. References i. Introduction The confidence of the public in the judicial process is paramount to ensuring an effective judicial system. It is though this confidence that citizens appreciate the independence and the important role played by the judicial system. Trial through a jury has been a long tradition in the justice system that it is considered as unique approach in the justice system in that it requires the use of ordinary citizens without prior legal training to hear evidence in a court of law, make sense of the conflicting facts and the application of legal rules to reach a final verdict about which all or the majority of jurors can agree. Thousands of cases are heard and determined by juries annually and prediction regarding the potential verdicts has a large influence on the decisions required to settle civil lawsuits and in offering and accepting plea bargains in most criminal cases. Jury trials have therefore an important role to play in the law. It is through these juries that psychologists can better perceive how individuals perceive, interpret and remember evidence and the various ways in which the juror members can establish consensus with one another. Largely, the use of these juries in trials is mainly observed as giving the public the power and entrusting them to govern themselves in that the members are just ordinary public with no prior training in law. Most western countries through this have undertaken to use juries in both criminal and civil cases. Does it mean that judges are not entrusted to pass out credible verdicts? Not really. Jurors are just intended to ensure that the trial has the view and acceptance of the ordinary man. ii. Facts and statistics on juries In 2005, about 16,397 tort cases were disposed by jury or bench with the jury hearing 90% of these cases. 80% of all jury trails globally takes place in the US 70% of Japanese citizens reluctant to serve in the jury In 2009, there were six verdicts over $1,000,000 in the US in medical malpractices with largest being at $23.6 million settled after trail (Day, 2010). iii. Objectives of the review This review has several objectives which are; Evaluating the importance of a jury Understanding how a jury operates Recommending the retention of juries in corridors of justice. iv. How jurors operate. Jurors in most cases do a good job in weighing the evidence provided and applying the law in passing out the verdict of an accused (Greene & Bornstein, 2000). Usually, where jurors are considered to have erred, there is evidence that the errors reflect well documented and universal psychological principles that may include heuristic reasoning and attribution errors (Greene & Bornstein, 2011). This may aid in watering down the numerous criticism along with extensive media coverage that portray sensitive cases that have been used to portray the jury as being incompetent and resulting to wrong judgments especially in criminal cases. These errors occurring within the acceptable and recognized psychological principles explain the overall usefulness of these juries in civil and criminal cases and further explain that there is an importance of retaining them in the corridors of justice. The lack of fairness in the court system may be attributed to: System not offering required protection to citizens form harm by bringing offenders to the required justice Proceedings in the court system being lengthy Outcome of sentences portraying a disconnection between the crime committed and the senesce handed to offenders (Falconer, 2006) Juries in most cases ensure that judges entrust fairness and preserve the issue of subjective decision making in convicting persons in a court of law (Lea, 2006). The role of jury is to weigh the evidence this is presented in court, apply the law as directed by the trial judge regarding the facts found in the case and the jury then delivers a verdict whether the accused is either guilty or not guilty (Jural trials in western Australia, n.d). This makes any person who enters a plea of not guilty in Australia and other countries to be entitled to have a jury trying them (Criminal Procedure Act, 2004). Since the judge is responsible for regulating the trail proceedings in ensuring that the issues raised by both parties are determined according to law, it means that the jury are under the guidance of a trained judge and even if they have not been trained in law the guidance of the judge makes the whole process to accord to the legal doctrines. This makes the participation of the public in the administration of justice as jury members to legitimize the criminal justice system (NZLC, 1998). A jury largely fosters the ideal of equality in a court of law and ensures that in the administration of justice the whole process is unbiased and detached as pert the interests of the community at large Brown v The Queen (1986). This is in contrast to cases where a single judge is left to pass a verdict incases where personal subjectivity and prejudice risk being introduced in the process, thus affecting un biasness and the interests of the community at large. v. Jury verdicts and theory It is hard to determine the right or wrong in trails by a jury. In Lawrence Sherman’s reworking of ‘defiance theory’ power is perceived to be centrally located (Newburn, 2007). Where conflict theories view the criminal law as a struggle for material power of punishment and policing, defiance theory recognizes the entire material force of that power, and in addition predicts the long-term control of the power in terms of the moral intuitive power among the contestants (Newburn, 2007). Psychologists recognize the verdict by jurors to be either based on either verdict driven or evidence driven style. These try to seek a common position that is more profound among the jurors and that would form the final verdict through adduced evidence (Lieberman & Krauss, 2009). This is the aspect of criminology, and the application of social learning theories in the jury during trial may offer more light towards establishing the level of guilt of the accused, and the factors such as differential reinforcement and association that is associated with such behaviors. This may not be achieved in cases where a single judge is responsible for passing judgment to the accused. Jurors in criminology are largely not expected to offer a correct verdict in law, but the argument is whether a verdict was reasonable in light of the prevailing evidence and law (Bonstein & Greene, 2011). This is because; cases are sometimes complex and require elaborate evidence to be presented for a correct verdict to be presented. It is therefore very hard to arguably conclude from a legal or a psychological view that the jury has settled on the right verdict unless a DNA testing exists to portray that the accused did or did not commit the crime (Greene, 2009). Matters of decree uncivil cases are even harder to determine in jurors as they mostly involve the conduct of the defendant that is hard to determine. It is therefore unfair to concentrate on the cases that a jury is perceived to have settled on the wrong judgment without alluding to the evidence and facts at hand. The case of O.J Simpson criminal trial for the murders of Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson was one of the most remarkable cases that kept the jury in the spotlight. The question is, was the verdict of the jury in acquitting Simpson an optimal verdict? Many view this as a case of jury to misrepresent the facts in cases. However, cases by jury involve clause cases and almost all verdicts are reasonable. In the above case, there were reported massive police misconduct allegations and evidently inconsistencies (Bonstein & Greene, 2009). This indicates the difficult there is in determining how to measure the performance of the jury. It is not enough to conclude lightly that the jury erred in this case. The above case involving murder, the jury was criticized for entering a verdict of not guilty against the defendant, as most people expected the defendant to be guilty considering the evidence provided in the court. However, as argued above, the jury is responsible for evaluating the circumstances and the evidence advanced in the case to find it meriting a verdict of guilty or not guilty. The above case contained some inconsistencies as argued above, and these as compared to the evidence advanced were not enough to pass a verdict to guilty. The jury in this case entered a reasonable verdict, but the issue of it being right or wrong is prone to critical examination of absolute measures such as DNAs. At a common law, the role of the jury is reduced to that of a fact finder in that they are only require to prove whether the fact on an issue have been adequately proved in the court (Obilo, 2009). Largely, the media coverage of the cases in highlighting the issue of criminal victimization constructs a random, wanton and the intentional acts of an evil folk (Ferrell, 2005). The focus of journalists in issues of crime and the particular type of crime are in most cases selective in that the media in most cases takes sides in similar cases, making the public to be oriented to the particular direction (Lees, 1995). On the other hand, incases where the victim never acquires a legitimate victim status or those that may be referred to be undeserving victims receives little attention from the media and these pass literary unnoticed in the media in the wide social world (Greer, 2003). This makes the jury to be branded as being selective while the cases that the jury has concrete proofs are in most cases not highlighted. vi. core importance of the jury i. The public confidence in the court of law that is instilled by administration of justice engineered by the existence of a jury is invaluable and of paramount importance (Gleesom, 2007). ii. In most cases, while a trial involves application of some objective community standards such as an issue requiring reasonableness, indecency, obscenity or even dangerousness, a jury is perceived to be of importance. A decision of a jury instead of that of a single judge in these circumstances may stand to have more public confidence in the justice system (Brown v The Queen,1986) iii. A trial by a jury is considered to be a trial by peers or equals in that ordinary people are randomly selected in the jury. It is considered that there is no better conviction as compared to conviction by one own people, and these trials receive more support and acceptance among the public (Lea, 2006) iv. In most cases juries have to operate under stringent principles in the legal framework in passing their verdict. These principles lead them to the final verdict systematically through consideration of the facts adduced in the court. Any juror found to act unethically such as searching through the internet to aid in solving such cases or either being in a compromised position that may affect the fairness of the case are vigorously disciplined and expunged from the book of the jury (Bailin, 2011). This makes the jury to be credible and fair. vii. Conclusion. The issue of jurors in corridors of justice has been a thorny one, with studies aimed at establishing the effectiveness and the fairness of using a juror in trials. Most of these trials have however portrayed that jurors are in most cases effective fair and important when used in criminal proceedings not only because of an inherent culture of using them, but due to the credibility of the final verdict on the defendant (Travis, 2010). The use of a juror aims at ensuring that the common man has some governance in the judicial process, and a verdict that is entered by fellow ‘common men’ would have a more credible standing as compared to one entered through legal jargon from a judge. These issues including the fairness of the entire proceeding if considered, the issue of retaining the juror in criminal and civil proceedings would have a merit legally and from the common man point of view. List of references Bailin, A., 2011.Can jurors in the internet age avoid being in contempt of court? The Guardian, 5th July. Available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/jul/05/jurors-internet-age-contempt-court [accessed 15th Dec. 2011] Brown v The Queen (1986) 160 CLR 171, 197 (Brennan J). Brown v The Queen (1986) 160 CLR 171, 202 (Deane J). Criminal Procedure Act (WA).2004. Available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/bill/cpb2004198/ [accessed 15th Dec. 2011] Day, J., 2010. “Tennessee jury verdict Reporter” statistics- Part4. Day on Torts http://www.dayontorts.com/cat-jury-trial-statistics.html [accessed 15th Dec. 2011] Falconer, L., 2006. Doing Law Differently, London: DCA. Ferrell, J., 2005. ‘Crime and culture’, in C. Hale, K. Hayward, A. Wahidin and E. Wincup (eds), Criminology. Oxford: Oxford University Press Gleeson M, 2007.‘Juries and Public Confidence in the Courts’ 90 Reform 12 Greene, E., & Bornstein, B.H. 2009. Precious little guidance: Jury instructions on damage awards. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 743–768. Greene, E., & Bornstein, B.H., 2000. Precious little guidance: Jury instructions on damage awards. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 743–768. Greene, E., & Bornstein, B.H., 2011. Jury decision making implications for and from psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science 20: pp 63 DOI: 10.1177/0963721410397282 Greene, E., 2009. Psychological issues in civil trials. In J.D. Lieberman & D.A. Krauss (Eds.), Jury Psychology: Social Aspects of Trial Processes. (Vol.1, pp. 183–205). Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Greer, C., 2003. Sex Crime and the Media: Sex Offending and the Press in a Divided Society. Cullumpton: Willan. Jury trails in Western Australia. Chapter 1, n.d. Available at http://www.lrc.justice.wa.gov.au/2publications/reports/P99-DP/Ch01-Jurors.pdf [accessed 15th Dec. 2011] Lea, J., 2006. The criminal court trial. Available at http://www.bunker8.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/cjs/26905.htm [accessed 15th Dec. 2011] Lees, S.,1995. ‘The media reporting of rape: the 1993 British ‘‘date rape’’ controversy’, in D. Kidd-Hewitt and R. Osborne (eds), Crime and the Media: The Post-Modern Spectacle. London: Pluto Press. Lieberman, J., & Krauss, D., 2009. Jury psychology: Social aspects of the trial process. Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Newburn, T., McLaughlin E., 2010. The sage handbook of criminological theory. London: SAGE. NZLC, 1998. Juries in Criminal Trials: Part One, Preliminary Paper 32 Obilo, B.E., 2009. Reason curve, jury competence in English criminal justice system. FL. Universal Publishers. Travis A., 2010. The verdict on juries: fair, effective and efficient. [online]The Guardian, 17th Feb. Available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/17/juries-fairness-research [accessed 15th Dec. 2011] Read More