Jury

The Jury

Uses of the Jury

The Jury is described as the 'Bulwark of our liberties' in Ward v James. The jury represents the just face of the law. Because they are not trained in law, they are not bound by the black and white letters of the law and many of its issues. Instead, they can use their conscious to decide whether the defendant should be liable or not. Unlike the judges or the lawyers, they are not bound by the evidence, they have no prior knowledge and hence can be said to weigh the evidence that is presented before them without any biasness. They are also the representation of society, especially in a community of democracy, public involvement has never been more important to make contain the abuse of power that is likely to be in courts in cases that favouritism arises.

Problems of the Jury.

1. Racial Discrimination

To explain its racial discrimination would first be to understand how the jury is selected. The Lord chancellor has derived a method of collecting jury members from the electoral roll, but this has proven to lead to problems mainly that the electoral roll does that truly reflect the composition of citizens in the UK. Based on Darbyshire, many minority ethnic groups do not register themselves with the electoral roll for a variety of reasons, even including evading council tax. However, courts have taken a strict approach as to modifying the jury make-up. In R v Ford, the courts maintained that it would be overstepping of the judge's powers to grant a change in jury, even in cases that involved race. However, studies conducted by Ugwuegbu indicated that whites tend to rate a black defendant more culpable than a white, which clearly shows the racially discrimination that exists. Yet while courts say that they are not trying to be racially discriminatory, in the IRA cases that were held the jury could not have any people from Ireland involved. Does this then mean that the jury is biased towards the majority race in the UK?

2. How the jury arrives at decisions.

Much of how the jury arrives at their decisions is unknown because it is a rule that no one can question the decision reached by the jury. For someone to question the jury would be unfair to the other party, as juries can rely on a couple of reasons above that of evidence, for example, self-consciousness, pity, and many more. However, the problem with this is that there can be no accountability on the jury's part. The unpredictable way the jury decides often leaves lawyers and judges vexed. For example, in R v Young, the jury used a medium to call back the dead from the spiritual world in order to find out if the defendant was guilty. Such absurd ways not only makes the losing side to cry out unjust but also they diminish the whole concept of having a legal system.

Moreover, different people tend to have different ways of arriving to conclusions. From the evidence by Vidmar and Hans, the research found that people tend to form alliances with people of similar thinking, notwithstanding the evidence that was displayed. These alliances can cause a huge influence over the minority in the jury hence often leading to unanimous votes. Another research by Sealy and Cornish also found that women tend to convict more than men in mock rape trials. The inconsistency and over usage of unconventional methods lead to many parties crying foul.

3. Understanding Directions

Another problem to the jury is that since they have not been legally trained, it is very difficult for them to understand the directions that lawyers and judges give. The technical jargon is a barrier, certainly something should be done to let the jury understand better, and certain courts have started to issue out directions in printed form so that the jury can go through it slowly, but this measure has not yet been implemented in all courts. The Auld report also gives suggestions such as allowing the jury to ask questions and take down notes. By all logic this would seem practical and only aid in serving justice better but courts are generally against this because such unprofessional asking would tamper with the cases put forward by the prosecution and defendant, risking an unfair verdict.

Also, there have been many criticisms from the directions given by the judges. Because of the eloquence of judges, it is often very easy to give a biased direction to the jury which subtly includes the opinion of the judge, hence making the verdict unsafe. Also, another issue is the problem of beyond reasonable doubt. Although the judge would give the jury the direction that the prosecution or defence has proven the case beyond reasonable doubt, there is doubt and conflict in the issue of reasonableness. Is it 100%? Or merely more than satisfactory? Most of the jury would think that it is 100%, and that would mean it would be almost impossible to convict anyone, but the level of reasonableness cannot be set that easily. Studies have shown that even judges cannot give a definite percentage, and gave results from between 80% to 100%.

4. Other Problems

The often lengthy trial process is one which affects the jury's decision. Studies have shown that in such cases the jury often reaches a verdict out of boredom, they do not have the capacity or ability to process every single piece of evidence. Moreover, certain trials can last over months, and hence some jury may forget some important evidence. This lengthy process also means that the jury is subjected to more bullying and more swaying. As fatigue kicks in, it is easy for lawyers or judges to influence the jury and secure a desired result.


Yet, despite all these problems that stem from the jury, why is it still that the legal system is unwilling to abolish the jury system? The main reason is that the jury represents the just face in the legal system. Since the past, convicted criminals were given the choice to opt for jury or non-jury trial. Jury trial was favoured for the basic reason that the jurors were people whom the criminal could associate with, and not some hardened solicitor or prosecutor who did nothing more than sprout complex legal theories that the criminal would not be able to understand.