The Jury and its Functions - Research Paper Example

 The Jury and its Functions Introduction A jury is a group of people put under oath to deliver an impartial ruling on a question posed to them by a court therefore influencing judgments. Juror means an individual member appointed to serve in jury, which is essentially swearing to truth. Before one serves in a jury, they have to undergo a rigorous selection process to determine whether they are fit to serve in it. It is every citizen’s duty to serve as a member of a jury at least once in their lifetime (Lewis, 2001). A jury hearing is a proceeding that makes decisions and ultimately makes a ruling from established findings used by a judge. These trials play a role in determining major criminal cases in the United States and Canada. Other countries that have embraced this system include France, Germany, Japan, Mexico, and the Soviet Republics among many others. This paper will strive to bring out the pros and cons of using jury system, its relevance in delivery of justice, and its impact on modern day society. Additionally, it will also highlight what exactly goes on in a jury deliberation chamber by carefully examining the process (Bethel, 2009). Types of Jury According to various sources, there are mainly two types of jury namely the Petit Jury and the Grand Jury. To break them down, the petit jury requires eight jurors in a civil hearing and twelve in a criminal case proceeding. A criminal trial involves the hearing of a felony, which is a serious offence (Doyle, 2010). The jury’s work in a criminal case is to ascertain whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty as charged through every juror’s involvement. On the other hand, the verdict in a civil case’s verdict is by the juror’s three quarter majority vote. Grand jury is the second type of jury whose main work is to determine whether the defendant actually committed the alleged crime and if the hearing is fit to go to full trial. Therefore, they do not determine the accused innocence or guiltiness and have no direct influence on the outcome of the trial. Usually, service of individuals at the grand jury is longer than that of those serving at the petit jury. Seemingly, the two types juries have very contrast roles in the delivery of justice through this system of judgments. Process of the jury Everything in life has a systematic process or sequence of events and this is no different when it comes to execution of jury duty. Ideally, after individuals qualify to sit at a jury they keenly follow the court proceedings, as every thing said is vital in delivery of judgments. The presiding judge determines when the jury goes to deliberate then bring their findings to the court. Normally, the deliberation is tasking but they only emerge once they have agreed depending on the type of jury sitting. In most juries, an alternate juror is kept in case one juror is absent and his contribution is not required unless one juror is not able to attend the full trial. Moreover, the deliberation process is essential as it helps the jurors to gain information that they might have missed during the court sitting. This also involves the critical analysis of presented evidence and challenging of individual interpretation of the events by the jurors. Mostly, it produces a solid verdict that is arrived through active participation of jurists in voting as per their analysis. Afterwards, they return to the courtroom to give their verdict. Pros and Cons In many forms, Lewis (2001) believes that jury system of justice delivery has helped contain power initially bestowed upon experienced law scholars. The involvement of diverse citizens has helped instill values into legal proceedings by allowing individuals employ the rule of law by being equal participants in delivering adequate justice. In addition, jury trials have enabled citizens to understand their laws better hence encouraging self-governance. Jury verdicts are also favorable compared to rulings made by a judge or a bench of judges since it involves the participation of individuals’ sentimentality. Positively, the discretion involved in the deliberation process also makes it advantageous to the implementation of justice as the jury is allowed to tear down information that would have otherwise remained un turned during the court proceeding. In other words, the chances of turning every evidential stone are very high as nothing escapes the attention of the convened group (Doyle, 2010). However, this system also has its downside, which by overlooking them would be detrimental. One of its disadvantages is that personal feelings may influence a jurors vote instead of the spirit of the law required. Notably, impartiality is imminent in emotional offences like child defilement, rape and in cases of sodomy in both adults and children (Tanford & Penrod, 2006). Tentatively, leaving the fate of an accused individual at the mercy of individuals who have not studied the law keenly is also daunting. Most of those called to serve as jurists have little or no law background therefore questioning their ability to give sane verdicts. In addition, racial bias can also influence the jury’s ability to give a true verdict, as individuals feel obliged to side with their own race. Justice is blinded in that the truth is shoved aside paving way to unfairness and impartial judgments. Seemingly, the cons over ride the pros but this does not necessarily make jury system the non-preferable choice for delivery of substantial justice (Sunstein et al., 2003). Prejudices In many criminal cases, the jury perceives the defendant to be guilty as charged in that an arrest to an individual doing what is right socially is impossible. More so, the graphic images by the media used to portray criminals makes a jury to pass negative verdict to an accused without even listening to their defenses (Poole, 2010). Therefore, ones appearance in front of a jury might greatly influence the outcome of the trial in that if they are wrongly dressed, though innocent, they qualify to be criminals. Unfortunately, race is a factor considered when selecting members who qualify to serve in a jury. Sadly, their leniency to their race does not matter, as they are still admitted as members of the jury. Oblivious is the fact that their vote would be considerate and favorable to their natives and would not be about the incriminating evidence against them (Tanford & Penrod, 2006). Money, stature, and power also affect the outcome of a jury’s verdict in that the defendant might buy a juror’s vote without the knowledge of the rest of the jury. This is a criminal offence though many get away with it. Evidently, the prejudices that people have becomes a great hindrance in the execution of state duties like jury duty. Conclusion The delivery of effective justice has over the years continued to be a steep hurdle for many states to get over no matter their choice of justice system. Jury system on the other hand continues to enjoy preferential treatment by many developing states, as it is a simple way of ensuring that citizens understand and exercise their laws to the latter (Sunstein et al., 2003). The delivery of effective justice has over the years continued to be a steep hurdle for many states to get over no matter their choice of justice system. Jury system on the other hand continues to enjoy preferential treatment by many developing states, as it is a simple way of ensuring that citizens understand and exercise their laws to the latter. Through this system, the United States and other great nations are far ahead since they have ensured that their citizens are law abiding. Moreover, their younger generations also grow in anticipation to perform their state duty as jurors when they attain the eligible age. As a challenge to other nations, other than joining the army or working as civil servants, why not embrace jury system and allow many citizens to be participatory citizens. This is because not many get the chance to enroll in either of the two, as the opportunities are scarce or limited. In the end, this system is far much better compare d to use of a judge or a judge to decide on the fate of those perceived to be petty or major offenders. References Bethel, E. (2009). Reason Curve, Jury Competence, and the English Criminal Justice System: The Case for a 21st Century Approach. New York: Universal-Publishers. In his book, Bethel Erastus-Obilo sees the significance of articulation of decisions made by public officer. This, according to him helps to ensure that they justify their decisions hence minimize the biasness. Doyle, C. (2010). Federal Grand Jury. Philadelphia: DIANE Publishing. In Doyle’s book, the existence of federal grand jury helps investigate any crime that in the United States. Further, the rights speculated in the constitution are safeguarded. As such, the Author believes that there is need for broad power in their responsibilities hence bias decisions are not made. Lewis, T. (2001). Towards A Limited Right Of Access To Jury Deliberations. Federal Communication Law Journal. Vol 58, 195-214. As indicated in Lewis, Torrence Journal, in every deliberation process, there is need to provide prove of the verdict. To make it possible, this journal shows the importance of cameras being places in the rooms to have a record of the deliberation process. The ultimate advantage is for every juror to have an autonomous confirmation of the deliberative process. Poole, S. M. (2010). Exploring Conflict Management process in Jury Deliberations Through Interaction Analysis. Sage Journals. Vol 41 (4), pp 408-426. In Marshall Scott Poole article, there is a thorough exploration on the micro-level conflict processes as well as macro-level phasic structures of managing conflicts in tow different Jury deliberations. As indicated in the journal, deliberations have completely different processes of managing conflicts. As a result, there exists bias verdicts. Sunstein, C. R., et al. (2003). Punitive Damages: How Juries Decide. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. With the main aim descriptive, this book serves as a good intersection of social Science and law. In their publication, they authors seek to understand the reasons behind Juries decision in times of cases involving punitive damage. In so doing, the ultimate goal is to get to a close understanding of the juries actions and the reason. It is thus a good book in understanding the biasness in verdicts. Tanford, S. & Penrod, S. (2006). Jury Deliberations: Discussion Content and Influence Process in Jury Decision Making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. Vol 16 (4), pp 322-347. This journal, authored by Tanford Sarah and Penrod Steven did a thorough investigation on the deliberation process. This journal concentrated on the facts behind the cases, and the verdicts given in reference to guilty or not guilty. According to these authors, some charges are based purely on content of deliberation while others were based on normative pressure. Read More