Jury trials are a more like a double-edged sword equally hailed and hated for its peculiarities. They are not a mere procedural formality in the criminal justice system. Jury trials are the most impactful way to directly exercise a citizen's sovereign rights. Just as the public exercise their legislative rights by electing by voting, they exercise their judiciary rights by serving as jurors. The concept of the basic right to trial by jury has its historical roots in the Magna Carta when the latter prominently declared that "no freeman shall be punished except by the lawful judgement of his peers. The great charter saw representative government and jury trials as the two great pillars of a democratic society. John Adams also famously recognized jury trials as the heart and lungs of liberty.
This month, Lawgralk digs into the rich history of Common law concept of jury trials, and its journey of transformation from classic twelve angry men to alternative designs discovered in the contemporary history, and also inquire into the vice and virtues of common-law jury system and factors behind the continuing decline of its popularity in UK, US and Australia where juries were once said to glorify the criminal justice realm.
Historical origins of trial by jury.
Socio-political origins of jury trials can be traced back to the Norman conquest of 1066 in England, the supposed homeland of common law concept of jury. The global diffusion of jury trials in the last few centuries are characterized by two phases. Firstly, during the eighteenth century, jury system was driven by British colonialism, replicating jury trials as an English legal institution in colonies for the benefit of English settlers who felt squeamish towards native laws. Secondly, post-cold war uptick in western political democracy encouraged developing countries with fledgling democracies to adopt jury systems in order to promote citizen participation in their judiciary.
Denial of the privilege of trial by jury to Americans was at the forefront of American revolution. The US Declaration of Independence also listed, among many other grievances, depriving the benefit of trials by jury. Jury trial of Zenger in 1735 was the little spark that ignited the press freedom in pre-independent America leading up to the independence struggle. One of the founding fathers of the US Constitution, Thomas Jeffforson once wrote “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”
Until around early twenty-first century, jury trials were not a prominent sight in Asia, except for Japan and a few British colonies including Sri Lanka and Hong Kong. Since 2008, South Korea, Asia's most promising democracy, proudly showcases a homegrown jury system, a hybrid one mingling features of common law juries and mixed tribunals.
Bird's eye view of global jury systems.
Singapore, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and Malaysia have abolished jury trials in favour of bench trials in the post-independence era. In 1974, Indian code of criminal procedure completely abolished the jury system. But Parsi community still use five-membered jury trials in special matrimonial courts. The most common complaint that juries are not suitable to multi-ethnic multi-cultural nation might have influenced them to do away with a completely foreign, transplanted jury system.
Blackstonian jury trials are far less important in civil jurisdictions. Only US makes routine use of jury trials in a vast range of criminal and civil offences. But even in US, only less than 2% of federal criminal cases go to jury trials. Criminal juries are a rare phenomenon in UK and account for only 1% of all criminal trials. But criminal juries continue to be an enduring feature in the Australian legal system. Even in those jurisdictions, right to trial by jury isn't as broad as it was half a century ago. Today right to trial by jury is no longer the full-scaled right every accused was historically and traditional entitled to and its scope is qualified to a selected fraction of serious offences. Not many criminal offences are sufficiently serious to attract jury option. In addition to US and Canada, in England and Wales civil juries still continue to hear a handful of civil cases including malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. And in the rest of the world, civil jury trials are almost absent.
The institutional design of juries have also undergone significant transformation during the last few decades, and slightly varies from country to country. But juries whatever their design and composition stem from either the classic jury at common law or mixed tribunals. Mixed tribunals are the more proliferated form of jury systems in the world, and are commonly associated with civil law jurisdictions such as Russia, Japan, Brazil and Norway. They consist of lay assessors sitting alongside judges.
Democratic value of jury trials.
The right to be tried by one's peers remains at the core of criminal justice system in both common law and civil jurisdictions. Transcending beyond, jury system is further recognized as a mode of governance and a vital part of system of checks and balances. It is the most direct way for citizens to actively participate in the process of governing. And it is also a safeguard against political oppression and abuse of the criminal justice system. It ensures fairness and legitimacy of the justice system. It Lord Delvin's statement is a testament to the democratic significance of jury trials. " Trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than a wheel of the constitution; it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives".
Lay participation in the judicial apparatus has long been seen as a true embodiment of democratic integrity and conscience in the justice system. As jury trials vests public with some judicial authority to participate in the process of administering justice, they provide a two-way channel to let perspective of the citizen and public opinion creep into courthouses and to clear misapprehensions the public might have of our justice system. As Blackstone once said juries are a progressive way to keep the law alive.
Role of common law jury.
Initially, jury began as a body of neighbors reporting facts of a case from their direct personal knowledge. Gradually, persons who hardly knew about facts were selected as jurors, and thus the role of jurors transformed from being mere witnesses to adjudicators of evidence actively participating in inquiring facts, collecting testimonies and ultimately weighing evidentiary value of their findings. But in the course of time, jurors shed the investigative arm and settled themselves to the role of passive court room triers.
Juries consist of randomly picked ordinary citizens. The rationale behind drawing jurors from among laymen is that a random commoner is best able to understand the psychology of an accused and societal circumstances. And twelve minds collectively deliberating on evidence is considered more fair than an evaluation by a single judge sitting alone.
Jurors as factual judges are faced with the mounting challenge of filtering fact from fiction. They use their collective wisdom and common sense to decide a case. Unlike in a bench trial where judge weighs the evidentiary value of facts presented before him, in a jury trial factual findings of a jury direct the actions of a judge. In jury trials, jurors act like lay judges.
It is generally understood that jury determines the questions of fact by weighing the evidence presented and witness testimonies, whereas judges rule on the questions of law. Jury merely decides the guilt or innocence of an accused. Sentencing subsequent to a jury verdict is the sole discretion and responsibility of judge. Jury nullification is where jury returns a perverse verdict in disregard of jury's finding of facts and judge's instructions as to law. In simple terms, deciding an accused not guilty despite jury's belief beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence charged.
Judge's role in a jury trial is restricted to merely instructing as to the law, advising as to the facts and imposing a sentence subsequent jury verdict. Judge's authority to sentence derives from the jury's factual findings. Additional findings of facts by judge alone which are not subjected to deliberation of jury cannot be considered in sentencing. In US, Apprendi v New Jersey set forth the rule that facts concerned in enhancing sentences beyond statutory maximum must be facts submitted to examination of jury and proven beyond reasonable doubt. . In Blakely v Washington 542 US. 296 Supreme Court affirmed position in Apprendi. Thus, the role of the jury goes beyond determining an accused's guilt or innocence, and it extends to examination and evaluation of facts used for sentencing enhancement.
Jury determination of questions of fact cannot be overturned by judge and doing so goes against the principle of double jeopardy. But in US judges can enter a judgement non obstante veredicto (JNOV) and throw out unreasonable jury verdicts of guilty which are not supported by evidence. Nevertheless verdicts of not guilty cannot be thrown out by judges. Elsewhere in the world, in UK and Australia the jury verdict stays final, and all what a judge can do is to accept jury verdict and determine sentencing based on the jury verdict.
Inherent drawbacks of common law concept of jury trials.
A juror who comes to court with a pre-conceived notion or a bias necessarily causes prejudice to the accused. This is one major reason for unpopularity of jury trials among accused and defense counsels. Additionally, as jurors are random laymen, they are generally not legally literate, particularly they lack sufficient understanding about the core legal concepts such as burden of proof in a criminal case, the difference between a suspect and an accused, presumption of innocence, what a reasonable doubt is and so on and so forth. This very fact of lack of sufficient legal intellect could lead to possible manipulation of jurors by prosecution or defense. After all, this is the very reason why jury trials are more about drama than trial.
Another major drawback is that juries are not accountable. Juries as a rule are not required to give reasons for their verdict. Jury deliberations are confidential and this coupled with unreasoned jury verdicts, places the entire jury proceedings at odds with the principle of transparency and accountability.
Jury trials are unduly complicated and lengthy due to extra procedural steps, such as jury selection, charge to jury and hours of jury deliberations. Complex procedures also makes jury trials more expensive for everyday use. In terms of actual trial time jury trials proceed slowly than a trial before a judge. But interestingly jury trials last less long on docket than bench trials. This is because jury process is less prone to interruption and postponements.
With the rise of sensational media and tabloid journalism, public opinion has become a mere inflated popular opinion of no originality or organic value. As a result jurors come to courts with pre-conceived notions. Minds of jurors today are heavily influenced by massive pre-trial media exposure. Jurors are no longer passive listeners of facts, they actively and collectively embrace popular opinions hyped by media. In these circumstances the impartiality of jurors is a near impossibility.
One other reason for decline of jury trials is the growing judicial antipathy and distrust towards administration of justice by illiterate, ignorant commoners. Judges are among the critics who vehemently criticize the practice of jury nullification. Totally irrelevant considerations such as caste, communal and class differences play a little too much in jury verdicts. Jurors tend to disregard law and instructions given by judges and return perverse verdicts.
The most common complaint against juries is that they are not suitable to multi-cultural multi-ethnic and multi-racial heterogeneous societies. And also in cultures without a strong tradition of citizen participation in decision making processes, jury system is not likely to reap the intended benefits. Many take as a given that common law concept of jury trials is best suited to homogeneous societies like UK and is designed to cater exclusively to English manners and peculiarities. If you look at US, long-standing racial disparities there still continue to warp jury verdicts. In Australia, until 1960s indigenous Australians were not eligible to serve on juries. Even today native Australians are still vastly underrepresented. This is pretty much the main reason behind abolishing juries in post-independent India and Pakistan.
Jury system in UK.
Jury trials' constitutional status is disputed in UK.
Blackstonian concept of jury was once hailed as the glory of English law. But that glory has faded into a fateful disuse in recent times and the scope of jury trials have been significantly curtailed. From time to time jury verdicts in UK have been accused of stupidity and perversity, and some are clamoring for eliminating whatever the remnants remaining in the English jury system. Since UK does not have a written constitution and the status of right to trial by jury is in dispute. Some consider it a constitutional right in all but minor criminal cases while others consider it as a only a modality of trial. Juries Act, 1974 is the principal statute governing juries in UK. Since trial by jury lacks a clear constitutional status, it is vulnerable to be curtailed or abolished by the legislature at any time.
Which offences qualify to be tried by a jury?
There are three categories of criminal offences under the English criminal law; 'summary offences', 'either-way offences' and 'indictable offences only'. Summary offences are tried by a District judge sitting alone or by a bench of three magistrates siting together in Magistrates Courts. Eitherway offences(mid-level criminal offences relating to theft and stolen goods) as the term implies can be tried in either Magistrates courts or crown courts depending on the seriousness of the offence. A defendant charged with an eitherway offence of serious nature is entitled to insist on his right to trial in Crown Court where he can choose the option of trial by jury. Indictable only offences are the most serious offences that can only be tried in the Crown Court. Every accused charged with an indictable only offence has traditionally been guaranteed of right to a trial by jury. Murder, attempted murder, manslaughter; grievous bodily harm with intent/wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, robbery, aggravated burglary, possession of a firearm with intent, explosives offences and arson with intent to endanger life/arson being reckless as to whether life is endangered, serious motoring offences such as causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs, many sexual offences including the offence of rape. Other common law offences: perverting the course of justice, perjury, escape from custody, kidnapping, false imprisonment, cheating the public revenue. Therefore cases are triable only in crown courts. Trial by jury is guaranteed for serious crimes. Jury trials take place only in crown courts with regard to more serious offences on the criminal calendar.
How scope of jury trials was curtailed in UK?
In 1988, ss. 37-39 of Criminal Justice Act made common assault and battery, criminal damage and grand theft auto summary offences and scrapped them from jury trials. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 permits offences to be tried in crown court by a judge alone without a jury where there is a serious risk of jury-tampering (section 44) or where the case is complex or involves lengthy financial and commercial arrangements(section 43). This allowed prosecution to request serious or complex fraud cases to be tried in the absence of a jury if the judge be satisfied that the length or complexity of the case is likely to make the trial so burdensome upon the jury that the interests of justice require serious consideration to be given to conducting the trial without a jury.. However, section 43 did not come into force as it did not fulfil the affirmative resolution procedure. In 2007, a proposal by the Frauds (Trials without a jury) Bill to extend the effect of section 43 to complex fraud cases and to remove the affirmative resolution procedure was blocked by House of Lords. Section 113 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 repealed section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, reinstating historic right to trial by jury to serious fraud cases.
Peremptory challenges no longer permitted in UK .
Peremptory challenges are no longer available in UK as the Criminal Justice Act, 1988 abolished the right of peremptory challenges. Before 1988, each side was granted three peremptory challenges. Both defense or prosecution can challenge the composition of jury for reasons ranging from disqualifications or direct knowledge of case facts, or other potential conflicts. Any number of jurors or the entire jury may be discharged by the court.
Is jury unanimity required in UK?
Unlike in US, in UK majority verdicts are permissible. The Criminal Justice Act 1967 removed the requirement of jury unanimity. The motive behind introducing majority verdicts was to curb the number of re-trials and to prevent juror intimidation. However jury is told only a unanimous verdict can be accepted when the jury is invited to retire to consider verdict in the first instance. Permissible majority verdicts depend on the number of remaining jurors where some jurors are discharged due to illness. The following majority verdicts are deemed valid under English jury system.
- 12 jurors - the majority verdict can be 11-1 or 10-2.
- 11 jurors - the majority verdict can only be 10-1.
- 10 jurors - the majority verdict can only be 9-1.
Minimum number of jurors permitted to return a verdict is 9 and all trials by jury of less than 9 members would be aborted.
Scope of civil jury trials in UK.
In UK most civil cases have been removed from the province of jury system and are heard by a judge alone. Civil jury which was once coined as the little parliament in UK has constrained itself to defamation cases. Either party to libel cases can demand a jury trial. Though Defamation Act 1996 conferred a wide authority to Judges to dispose of libel cases on their own without a jury trial, application can still be made for trial by jury. Juries still continue to decide most of the substantive issues such as liability and quantum of damages while questions as to whether word concerned bear a defamatory meaning and whether statement implicates the public interest are decided by judge alone. In terms of section 11 of the Defamation Act 2013, it may be presumed that the mode of trial in libel cases is by judge alone rather than by jury.
Jury system in US.
Trial by jury, a constitutionally guaranteed right in US.
Every American citizen is constitutionally guaranteed the right to a trial by one's peers. Article III of section 2 of the U.S. Constitution requires trials of all crimes except cases of impeachment to be tried by jury. Fifth, sixth and seventh amendments in Bill of rights protect the right to trial by jury. Fifth amendment assures every person accused of a capital or infamous crime, a right to presentment or indictment of a grand jury. The sixth amendment guarantees every criminal accused a right to a speedy, public trial by an impartial jury. The seventh amendment preserves the right to trial by jury in suits at common law where the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars. The seventh amendment however does not create a right to trial by jury in all civil suits. But all state constitutions guarantees a right to trial by jury in civil matters. As much as in the rest of the world, trial by jury in civil cases in US have also fallen into disuse.
Grand juries v Petit juries.
Distinctively, there are two types of juries in US justice system; one petit juries, and the other the grand juries, both can be seen in criminal and civil matters. Grand juries are investigative juries which inquire into evidence presented by prosecutors and determine the sufficiency of evidence to warrant an indictment. They decide whether there is a probable cause to believe that the accused has really committed the offence he is charged with. whereas petit juries are tasked with evaluating facts presented in the court of trial and finding the accused's guilt or innocence and returning a verdict. Unlike petit jury trials which are held generally in public, grand jury proceedings are held in camera. Defendants and their counsels cannot appear before grand juries. What petit juries deliver is termed a verdict, whereas what grand juries present is an indictment. A grand jury consists of 16-23 jurors. A petit jury is composed of 6-12 members. Fewer may sit on lesser offences and but a jury cannot consist of less than six jurors.
Which offences qualify for trial by jury?
In Baldwin v New York, 399 U.S. 66 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a right to jury-trial can generally be invoked only in respect of offences which carry a potential sentence of more than 6 months imprisonment(which are termed serious offences for the purpose of jury trials). Therefore what most matters is the seriousness of the offence. Yet courts consider many other factors such as the weight of fines and onerous penalties without incarceration. The right to a jury trial, however, does not apply to petty offenses.
Though states have almost eliminated jury option from offences punished by fine only, jury-trial option is granted to accused charged with lesser criminal offences at state-level. Interestingly in a handful of states such as Texas, Vermont and Virginia accused charged with DUI, parking tickets and other traffic offences punishable by fine only are entitled to jury option as of right. In these states defendants enjoy right to a jury trial in all cases including minor misdemeanors.
Jury sizes vary from state to state.
There is a mishmash of jury sizes between federal and state laws, since the sixth amendment does not specify the number of jurors and the process of jury trials, leaving room for states to adopt varied jury designs. Twelve-person jury is the federal benchmark in the American legal procedure as confirmed in 1898 case of Thompson v Utah. 1968 case of Duncan v Louisiana also affirmed that a 12-person jury is requirement in both federal and state criminal trials.
But during 70's Supreme Court granted states significant leeway to reduce the size of juries. Six-member juries were the product of the Supreme Court ruling in Williams v Florida 1970, which revisited Thompson case and affirmed the constitutionality of juries with fewer than 12 members. It observed twelve member juries as a historically accidental figure and all what the sixth amendment assures is a body which possess the essential features of a jury. It held that a jury of six was constitutionally permissible as long as a jury of lesser number serves the function of preventing oppression by the government. However Ballew v Georgia set a lower limit on jury sizes, ruling that a jury of five to be unconstitutional. Thus, the law as it stands today, requires in all state criminal trials a jury of at least six persons.
Consequently a few states have reformed their laws permitting juries of lesser number for all criminal offences including serious felonies attracting death or mandatory life sentence. The intention of jury shrinkage was to cut costs of jury proceedings and to increase efficiency. For example, Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure requires six-member juries for all criminal cases except capital cases which shall only be tried by a jury of twelve jurors. Florida requires felony juries to consist of 6-12 jurors while misdemeanor juries to be 6 member juries.
Most US civil juries consist of 6 jurors though there may be as many as 12 jurors in a civil jury.
The requirement of jury unanimity.
During the recent decades the traditional common law requirement of a unanimous jury verdict has undergone significant transformation at state level, creating a conflict between validity of jury verdicts at federal and state level. In 70s, the Supreme Court permitted convictions to be made by non-unanimous qualified majority verdicts. In Apodaca v Oregon(10-2) and Johnson v Louisiana(9-3) Supreme Court ruled that majority verdicts do not violate the sixth amendment. When Louisiana amended its constitution requiring unanimous jury verdicts in all criminal cases tried after 1st January 2019, Oregon remained the only outlier state which allowed split decisions. In 2020, the Supreme Court in Ramos v Louisiana reversed Apodaca ruling and recognized jury unanimity as a constitutional guarantee conferred to every criminal defendant. Ramos overturned Oregon's prior allowances for split decisions. However jury unanimity is not required in civil jury trials.
Most jury trials end in hung juries.
The insistence on unanimous verdicts often lead to hung juries in a majority of jury trials. Hung juries usually result in a mistrial being declared or a another hearing being held at a later date. The doctrine of double jeopardy however doesn't affect hung juries, and charges against a defendant will not be dropped. Prosecution can also either reinstate or dismiss charges or reach a plea bargain.
Can an accused waive the right to trial by jury and elect to be tried by a bench trial?
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23(a) does not confer an accused the absolute right to waive a jury trial except with the prosecutorial consent and consent of the court. Singer v US refused to recognize that a defendant has a right to a bench trial. Nevertheless federal courts have observed that prosecution's insistence on trial by jury when compelling reasons (risk of prejudice and inordinate delay) exist for an accused to opt for a bench trial, insistence on a jury trial would deny an accused of his right to a fair and impartial trial. However the burden to prove detriment to accused is very high and only three reported cases have allowed a defendant to waive trial by jury despite prosecutorial veto.
However at state-level accused are statutorily granted the absolute right to waive jury option with the exception of capital cases. The prosecution cannot insist on a jury trial where a defendant has duly waived his right to jury trial. The constitutionality of waiver provisions at state level have been upheld in Patton v. United States, 281 U.S. 276. Patton held that jury-trial right is a right possessed by and waivable by a defendant provided the sanction of the court and consent of the prosecution are obtained. The court stressed on the importance of jury as a fact-finding body in criminal matters.
Are peremptory challenges permitted in US?
All states except Arizona allow peremptory challenges to jurors. The number of peremptory challenges(objections without grounds) depend on the nature of the offence and varies from state to state. Arizona's elimination of peremptory challenges goes into effect on 1st of January 2022.
Jury system in Australia.
Trial by jury is a constitutional right in Australia.
Section 80 of the Australian Constitution enshrines the right to jury trial. But it does not confer a personal right, privilege or a guarantee waivable by the defendant charged with a federal indictable offence.
"The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury, and every such trial shall be held in the State where the offence was committed, and if the offence was not committed within any State the trial shall be held at such place or places as the Parliament prescribes."
Which offences are triable by jury?
The general position is that only prosecutions brought on indictments qualify for trial by jury while jury trials are avoided in summary proceedings. Only defendants charged with an indictable offence are entitled to have his case tried by jury. Juries are not available in less serious (‘summary’) criminal proceedings.
However which of the offences are indictable and which ones are summarily triable remain a gray area in Australian legal system. It is open for the legislature to authorize summary disposition for any offence no matter how serious the offence is. Section 4G of Crimes Act of 1914 makes federal offences punishable by imprisonment exceeding 12 months indictable unless a contrary intention appears. But the Act also does not provide a clear guidance.
Composition of Australian juries and the requirement of jury unanimity.
Criminal juries in Australia consist of 12 jurors. Jury trials run in State District, Supreme, and Federal Courts. Each state of Australia has enacted separate statutes dealing with jury trials and jury service. The general rule is that jury verdicts must be unanimous in order for an accused to be convicted or acquitted. But the validity of majority verdicts are legally recognized in South Australia, Tasmania, Western Australia, Northern Territory and Victoria. Where 12 jurors do not reach a unanimous verdict, the jury trial results in a hung jury discharging the accused. But prosecution may retry the case. However in 2006, New South Wales enacted the Jury Amendment (Verdicts) Act 2006 to amend the requirement of jury unanimity in Jury Act 1977(NSW).
Can defendants waive the right to jury trial?
At state-level defendants are statutorily entitled to waive right to trial by jury. For instance in New South Wales, section 132 of Criminal Procedure Act 1986(NSW), a defendant may elect to be tried by a judge alone with the consent of prosecution and if the interests of justice so requires. However statutory waiver provided at state-level is not available to a defendant charged with a federal indictable offence. Alqudsi v The Queen(2016) HCA 24 reaffirmed this position which was earlier expressed in Brown v The Queen(1968) 1HCA 11 that indictable federal offences must necessarily be held in the presence of a jury.
Are peremptory challenges allowed in Australia?
Both prosecution and defense are entitled to peremptory challenges the numbers of which differ in each State. Challenges for Cause are unlimited.
The scope of Australian civil juries.
Australian civil juries though rarely used, try defamation cases; cases in the District Court or Supreme Court at the request of a party and subject to the Judge agreeing that it is in the interests of justice to have a jury involved; coronial inquests in limited circumstances. Civil juries cannot be seen in South Australia where juries are only used for criminal trials. Jury sizes in civil matters varies between states.
Concluding observations.
The world over jury trials are of far less importance. In UK there are calls for jury reforms as juries are no longer up to their job and continue to burden public coffers. The pandemic saw demands to temporarily suspend jury trials to clear the growing trial backlog. But even in UK no good enough excuses exist (other than saving cash and clearing backlog of trials) for scraping the jury system altogether. Doing away with juries would mean letting go of our sovereign judicial rights. Many civic-minded people believe it would be a folly to abolish jury trials due to their inherent weaknesses such as juror bias, intimidation and corruption.
The Australian experience of jury trials has more positive remarks to make about juries. In US jury system is plagued by racist white supremacy, but most Americans believe it to be a fundamental safeguard against political oppression and tyranny. Both at federal and state level, American judiciary is in the constant process of reinventing and restructuring the design of their juries to improve their functioning and acceptability. The enduring resilience of these two jury systems in US an Australia can be contributed to their readiness to quickly adapt and evolve.
Not every jury trial is perfect, but not every jury trial results in biased, perverse verdicts. The issue of underrepresentation of minorities in heterogenous societies is not something limited to juries. Therefore, reforming, not abolishing juries should be the answer. In the reform process, hybrid models combining judges and jurors would seem like a viable alternative, however citizen participation of these alternative models will not be on the same level as in common law juries. The increased level of citizen participation in common law juries is essential to keep our judiciaries strong and healthy, democratic and independent. Jury is the only chance to have our voice heard in the judiciary. Thus, the common law concept of jury trials are indeed worthy saving.
No comments:
Post a Comment