General Verdict of Guilty or Not Guilty - Essay Example

Should juries be required to give reasons for their general verdict of guilty or not guilty, or would such a requirement threaten their independence? [Author] [Institution] Should juries be required to give reasons for their general verdict of guilty or not guilty, or would ‎such a requirement threaten their independence? ‎ It is true that the judicial independence is an important concept in every free world, where the judiciary has the power to decide without fear, pressure or influence. The concept has been developed throughout the years after facing many challenges and problems. Their independence is the key concept to the provision of justice. Judiciary has been allowed to use its own intellect and decide whether guilty or not guilty. Over the years, there have been many threats to this independence when questions were raised on the reasons that the judiciary is liable to give while making verdicts. This was included in the politics about the role of judiciary. It is important to understand the concept and scope of the judicial independence in order to make conclusions on the threats and questions on the issue. The basic idea of the concept is that the judiciary is separate from all other branches of the government and so it should be kept away. The decisions of the courts should not be influenced by any of the branches of the government or any other improper influence. This idea may be used differently in every country according to the means of selecting the judges. Life tenures are provided for the judges to ensure that the judicial independence is promoted and this tends to free them to make verdicts and take decisions of cases according to the rule of law, even when they politically oppose the interests. Judicial review is also a power granted by some countries where the judiciary gains the power to check the legislature on certain issues where either the legislature is not performing the constitutional duties or making laws that are unconstitutional (Carey, 2003, p. 284). The Human Rights gives particular principles of equality in law. This enshrines the right to a fair trial and hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal set up under the law. However, the right guarantees the right to a trial without delay yet there still were seen gaps between these rights and the actual situations. It is the duty of the administration of justice to ensure that the judicial system of every area is influential by those principles and efforts are taken to follow them. The judiciary is responsible to act under the principles to make sure they are in translated fully into reality and so they are independent to take the decision over rights, freedom, life and property of the citizens. The United Nations Committee on the Prevention of Crime included some guidelines for the independence of judiciary and their selection, training and status. The role of judiciary should be assessed before the independence to ensure the importance of selection, training and conduct. Thus, the principles were set to promote the independence of judiciary by taking into account many factors. The basic principle for the independence is that the right should be given by the State and by the constitutional law of the country. This right has to be respected by all the governmental institutions and others to observe the rightful independence. The judiciary holds the duty to decide all matters impartially in regard to the facts that are presented. This should be without hesitation, restrictions, improper pressures, and threats, influences that are direct or indirect for any reason. They hold the jurisdiction over all judicial natured matters and remain with the solo authority to decide the competency of any case. Any sort of inappropriate interference in the judicial decisions by the courts is objectionable. Just like every citizen has the right to be tried using the legal procedure, he also has the right to be openly heard and go through the legal process. After assessing the importance of an independent judiciary, the principle states that every judiciary is entitled to independence and to make sure that the proceeding of the court are conducted fairly where the rights of the parties are respected. Not only are they entitled to independence, but they are also given the resources by the state to enable the performance of the functions properly. Hence, like all other citizens, the judiciary is also given the right to freely express, speak, belief and associate, provided that they maintain their dignity and impartiality while playing the role of the judiciary. They may also freely form associations to represent their ideas and promote training for the protection of judicial independence (Reynolds, 1996, p. 50). The members of the judiciary should be individuals of integrity and the appropriate training in law. The judicial selection makes sure the selection is not made for improper motives rather no discrimination should be against the person for his race, sex, color, religion or political. There shall be no categorization other than that the person should be the national of the respected country. The independence of the judiciary is secured by the law along with their security, remuneration, service conditions and pensions. The judiciary remains independent at all levels despite their promotion which is based upon the objective factors such as experience. The judiciary is given much respect from all aspects of the country, whether it is governmental institution or any local authority. There are principles set by the committee in the United Nations to ensure that the independence of judiciary is valued and respected but despite that, there are threats to the independence. Since the judiciary is keen to give verdicts, there has to be reasons for these verdicts too, but the question is that does the constitutional right of the judiciary regarding their independence disrupt due to this provision. The answer is assessed under the role of the jury and judges, how it is evaluated in the light of the concept of independence, and how it functions due to political factors and the human rights. The political factors at times tend to threaten the independence of the judiciary. The decisions made by the judiciary may be politically influenced or questioned by parties that are both internally and externally involved in the judicial process. Conflicts arise and intense criticisms are made due to political factors that challenge the long followed, traditional approach of the judicial independence. The threat to the judiciary by the political actors has to be significantly examined to settle the issues they raise. Projects are also to be initiated to realistically assess the risk to the courts due to the criticisms on judiciary independence. It is important to understand the true meaning of judicial independence to solve the political issues. The courts are a political institution, and they function to preserve the rule of law and protect the rights. The traditional theme of the independence should be enlightened with the new legal landscape. Thus, the modern role of judiciary should rather be more limited than the traditional role, in order to avoid the political issues (Gibert, 1997, p. 144). After the Human Rights Act of 1998, the independence of judiciary was given a new aspect. As the human rights declared that every human has to be given a fair trial, the role of judiciary enhanced to a wider perspective. Their role was now to fairly hear the parties and give their verdict with a reason to justify. Justice cannot be served without the reasons given for a decision. Every human has the right to know what he has been accused of and what he is being punished about. Every human has a right to defend himself. In force of the human rights, the reasons for the verdict are to be given by the judiciary. After the enactment of the Human Rights Act, there was a need to review the criminal justice system to reason the verdict of guilty or not guilty. This Act resulted in a change in which the criminals appealed against their convictions and this meant that the jury will have to tell the defendants how and why they have been found guilty. This applied for the judges and the jury members. It was already accepted that the magistrates need to give their reasons in the court for their decisions. But now, according to the Human Rights Act, the juries will also have to do the same in the criminal justice system. Under the article 6 of the Human Rights Act, the defendants were to be tried in front of an impartial and independent tribunal where the judgments are given in public. The lawyers also argued that the verdicts are not reasonable judgments in themselves and the defendants should be told the reasons for their convictions. The problem with this remained that the juries have no or less legal knowledge and this was suggested to be solved with the system where judges sit with the jury and act as their legal advisors. The written answers provided by the juries were also an approach that showed how the juries reached their decisions being unbiased. However there were still some lawyers who stated that the Article 6 did not apply to the juries and they were not bound to give reasons for their verdicts. Their role was to simply find that the defendant is guilty or innocent, without giving legal reasons. Another argument suggested that asking reasons from the juries for their verdicts would take away their ability to acquit in justice even when the facts are proven. In the criminal justice system, the jury is merely accountable to give their verdict for guilty or innocent, but in civil cases, the jury needs to answer the specific questions before reaching its verdict (Cross, 1999, p. 88). The secrecy of the jury is a concept in which the law prohibits any member of the jury to disclose the statements and opinions made at the time of jury deliberations. The concept says that the inquiry of the jury to confirm the validity of a verdict should not be functioned. The juror may not testify to any statement occurring during the deliberations or to any effect on the mind of juror that influences his assent or dissent of the verdict. The juror may only testify the questions relating to the understanding of the facts and principles of the case, and that the information has been effectively brought to his attention, but not about the juror’s mental process during the course of deciding. The secrecy of the jury room is often criticized by the lawyers and carriers of justice. They argue that the secrecy would not ensure that the jurors understand the case and come to the decisions rightly. If the secrecy is not functioned, it may prevent the miscarriage of justice. It should be allowed to assess the juror’s opinions and comments passed in the room. When the reasons are given, there will be no confusions about the judgments made under racial influences or inappropriate reasoning. It seems to be undesirable that a public inquiry is made in the juror’s room, but the defendant needs to know the reasons and logic behind the verdict decided against him or in favor of him (LaPorta, 2003, p, 260). Another important aspect in the law states that the jurors are accountable to give their verdicts and the judges are to give the lawful reasons. The verdicts given by the jurors cannot be challenges, but the reasons of the judge may be challenged. This implication is at times related to the independence of the judiciary yet many believe that it does not. The independence of the juries and judges is not questioned when they are asked to give reasons. Justice cannot be served without the proper reasonable judgments that are clear and concise. The jurors are an impartial group of people who decide the verdicts without the need of giving their reasons, and if they are asked, it takes away their abilities to make verdicts. It is however, true that the traditional role of juries and the modern role of juries have changed. After the intervention of the Human Rights Act, the juries are not bound to give the reasons for their verdict, but if they are questioned, their abilities will not be taken away. Thus, the arguments suggest that the defendants may ask for their reasons but it is not necessary and the jury members are not accountable to do so, however, the judges are. The independence of the judiciary serves in the limitation of the juries and judges to use their own intellect and mental capacity to decide the cases. References Carey H. 2003. “Is an Independent Judiciary Necessary for Democracy” Judicature 87(6), pp. 284-290 Cross F. 1999. “The relevance in law in human rights protection” Elsevier, 19(1), pp. 87-98 Gibert J. 1997. “Justice, Democracy and the Jury”. Dartmouth Publishing Co Limited, pp. 123-145 LaPorta R. 2003. “Judicial checks and balances” University of Chicago Press, 112(2), pp. 445-470 Reynolds G. 1996. “Race and the criminal justice system: How race affects jury trials” Centre for Equal Opportunity, pp. 45-67 Read More