Are Juries Fundamental to Adversarial Criminal Justice Process - Essay Example

Jury trials Are jury trials likely to be better proponents of justice as compared to trials where decisions are rendered by individual judges? The classic story of “Twelve Angry Men” promotes the message that jury trials promote justice because they enable a deeper examination of issues by a wider group of people, each of whom brings the fruits of their own wisdom and experience to the table to provide a more just verdict. Trials by jury are favored because they are viewed as stronger instruments of justice and fairness as compared to individual trial judges. In the case of a trial by jury, a decision is rendered by a group of nine individuals who may be drawn from different backgrounds, thereby bringing a depth of understanding of problems that single judges may not possess. According to Janata, “it is the mix of different persons with different backgrounds and psychological traits in the jury room that produces the desired results.” (Janata, 1976: 595-596). This feature may imbue juries with a greater ability to discern and make accurate determinations about the credibility of witnesses and the validity of arguments being offered, especially in criminal trials, especially because a jury is able to evaluate witnesses, plaintiffs and defendants from their perspective as ordinary citizens. Judges may sometimes get mired in the legal formalities and procedures to such an extent it may impede their intuitive judgments. There is also a greater possibility of bias arising when a single judge makes a decision on a case, particularly when it is a criminal case. In the case of a jury trial, the decision rendered is the cumulative effect of group deliberation, after the input and reflections from the different members comprising the jury are assimilated. Hence, a jury has the advantage of collective recall and weighing up of factors impacting upon a case. Since each fact is explored and discussed in a group, it allows a group scrutiny where bias is more likely to be eliminated than in the case of a single Judge. Jury trials have been advocated as an effective measure to bring justice to citizens, especially in criminal trials where jurors are believed to be better able to make assessments and judgments about character and believability of witnesses. Gastill and Weiser (2006) argue in favor of jury trials on the basis that being a part of a jury can spur greater levels of civil engagement from juror citizens and thereby provide a spur for real, deliberative democracy. While jurors do not make policy decisions, the experience of sitting in the seat of Government, deliberating with fellow citizens on the merits of a case and rendering decisions that have a real impact upon the lives of plaintiffs and defendants can be a transformative experience and. Gastill and Weiser (2006) have shown that while voting centric democracy is limited to the act itself, deliberative democracy that the experience of being a juror provides, “focuses on the communicative processes of opinion and will-formation that precede voting.” (Chambers, 2003:308). Despite this claim however, there are serious limitations to jury trials and there have been calls for abolition. This essay will argue in favor of abolishing jury trials by questioning whether the purported advantages of jury trials are really advantages at all? For example, one of the reasons why a jury trial is believed to advance the cause of justice is that jurors are believed to be better judges of character and the accuracy and validity of testimony. But proposals mooted for the abolition of jury trials are founded the belief that jurors are unable to make a clear assessment about the reliability of evidence proffered in a trial. For example, according to the findings of one study, “Jurors were inclined to believe witnesses who were highly confident more than those who had less confidence.” (Re, 1984: 516). The confidence displayed by a witness is not however, a guarantee of accuracy in the information that is being provided by the witness, hence if this is the criterion applied by jurors in assessing the validity of evidence, errors are likely to result. This issue is exacerbated by the fact that a jury is provided with limited opportunity for thoughtful, consistent and lengthy deliberation of the issues in a case. A jury is asked to deliberate on the issues shortly after hearing the last witness and asked to provide its verdict within a specific time. This eliminates the opportunity for deep and thoughtful contemplation and deliberation over the issues, while a trial judge has the opportunity to reflect on the issues for several days; hence his or her decision may benefit from the facility of such reflection. When a jury is asked to render its decision immediately after the summing up by a Judge, with only a few hours for debate and deliberation, there is a strong likelihood that judges will be subjectively influenced the most by the last witness they have heard, since their memory retention of this testimony would be the strongest. Such a practice is not conducive to a cool, rational and balanced assessment of the issues, nor does it favor a contemplation of all arguments and evidence offered by the witnesses and legal arguments. A trial judge is not likely to be swayed by his or her emotions in arriving at a decision on a case but may apply the law in reaching that decision. Jurors on the other hand, rarely have a background in law and are sometimes unable to assess evidence properly because they are unaware of the tactics used by lawyers and defendants to misrepresent evidence, present misleading information or manipulate the emotions and subjective assessments of jurors to gain a favorable verdict. Jurors may not have access to all relevant documents needed to make a proper judgment in a case, such as indictments, transcripts of plaintiff and defendant statements, etc. Since they come from varied backgrounds, they may not possess the level and complexity to evaluate evidence properly, especially in the case of financial fraud as mentioned above, when they do not have an adequate amount of financial knowledge. In trial courts however, judgments are made by trial judges who are well trained and knowledgeable about issues that are raised in such cases and are able to render a more balanced and just decision. In a study conducted by FosterLee et al (2000), the findings supported the conclusion that the quality of the judgment rendered by jurors was substantially improved when they were allowed access to written statements of the direct testimony of witnesses, rather than being expected to rely upon their own memories of the hearings, as is normally the case. (FosterLee et al, 2000). Another study demonstrated how procedural factors can impact upon the decisions rendered in the case of jury verdicts (Koch and Devine, 1999). This further supports the conclusion that decisions rendered by juries may be more susceptible to the influence of subjectivity as compared to a decision rendered by a trial judge. Jurors are denied the opportunity for deep and mature reflection and do not have access to all of the documents that a Judge has access to and this may impair the quality of their final decision. Judges on the other hand, have the opportunity to study all the necessary documents and transcripts, as well as engage in deep and thoughtful reflection on the issues of the case over the course of several days. Moreover, Judges are also well aware of how the legal profession operates and all the tactics that are used to manipulate evidence and the testimony of witnesses; hence they are unlikely to be taken in by such factors. The scope of error is therefore likely to be considerably reduced in the case of a trial by a judge. One of the major reasons put forward against jury trials in calling for their abolition is the relative lack of technical knowledge that jurors possess. Since jurors are drawn from among members of the public, they may not be well versed in complex financial matters or possess scientific knowledge and they may not be able to fully appreciate or evaluate evidence in trials, especially fraud trials. This failure to grasp complex evidence may impede accurate assessment of a case by jurors. Newman contends that the average intelligence of jurors has declined because stringent standards and minimum requirements are not being adequately imposed before individuals are permitted to become jurors, all of which compromises their ability to comprehend the legal ramifications of issues arising in a particular case. (Newman, 1995:516). All of the above arguments support the position that jury trials may not offer the advantages that a judgment by judges will, because the latter are more knowledgeable and also have the opportunity and time for study and reflection upon documentary evidence in the case. If fairness of a decision is the issue, there appears to be a higher probability that a decision rendered by a Judge will be fair and rational, while juror decisions allow more room for subjectivity and leave scope for errors. As a result, trials by jury would be better abolished. Bibliography: * Chambers, Simone. "Deliberative Democratic Theory", Annual Review of Political Science, 6: 307-26, (2003) * FosterLee, Lynne, Horowitz, Irwin, Athaide-Victor, Elizabeth and Brown, Nicole. “The Bottom line: The effect of written expert witness statements on juror verdicts and information processing”, Law and Human Behavior, 24(2):259-271, (2000). * Gastill, John and Weiser, Phillip J. “Jury service as an invitation to citizenship: Assessing the civic value of institutionalized deliberation”, Policy Studies Journal, 34(4): 605-628, (2006). * Janata, R. “The Pros and Cons of Jury Trials”, 11 The Forum: 590, (1976) * Koch, Chantal Mees and Devine, Dennis J. “Effects of reasonable doubt definition and inclusion of a lesser charge on jury verdicts”, Law and Human Behavior, 23(6): 653-675, (1999). * Newman, C.L. “Trial by Jury: An Outmoded Relic?” 46, Journal of Criminal Law Criminology and Police Science 512, (1995). * Re, Loretta. “Eyewitness identification: why so many mistakes?” 58, Australian Law Journal: 509, (1984). Read More