In response, some judges have promised and granted anonymity to prospective jurors. The objective of the jury system is to provide a just and fair outcome that could not otherwise be achieved by judges alone Lesser, 2010: 12. Damages would be more fairly, consistently and accurately calculated by professional assessors. It can only decide to indict the defendant and proceed forward toward trial. Each chapter contains essays by specialist authors on the role of the jury. The prosecution argued that the jury had been misled by the presiding judge on four crucial points. Secondly, in fact jurors will on the whole get very involved in the issues at stake.
Rosen, Jeffrey, One Angry Woman: Why Are Hung Juries on the Rise? Juries only decide questions of fact and have no role in criminal sentencing. For the jury system to be effective in the criminal trial process no bias must exist amongst jurors, however in high profile cases, bias is inevitable when the media is swamping one-sided information over the public before and during the trial. This makes it imperative that lawyers be highly prepared for trial because errors and misjudgments related to the presentation of evidence at trial to a jury cannot generally be corrected later on appeal, particularly in court systems based on the English tradition. In a landmark empirical study in 1966, Kalven and Zeisel found that judges and juries in criminal cases usually agreed on what the verdict should be. In Connecticut, alternate jurors are dismissed before the panel of sworn jurors begin deliberation. We could always simply alter the trials that we have juries for — the law has for instance recently changed so that juries are less regularly used for defamation cases.
Rarely, such as in very high-profile cases, the court may order a jury for the deliberation phase or for the entire trial. The jury determines the truth or falsity of factual allegations and renders a verdict on whether a criminal defendant is guilty, or a civil defendant is civilly liable. Traditionally the removal of jurors based on a peremptory challenge required no justification or explanation, but the tradition has been changed by the Supreme Court where the reason for the peremptory challenge was the race of the potential juror. This may result in justice being delayed for parties involved, especially those held in remand until their guilt can be determined. It is a system whereby the Executive branch is supported either directly or indirectly by the legislative.
Furthermore, if jury trials were abolished it is likely that this would result in prolonged trials as is the case in India. Nevertheless, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. And four, the jury was not instructed that Nanavati's defense had to be proved, to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonable person. In order to understand the issue a little better, we are going to look at the pros and cons of the jury system. After the , some parts of the country preserved juries as the means of investigating crimes. White between-participants design was implemented.
Jury service can be seen as a way of ensuring that society is involved in the administration of justice, and that we are well protected from the state. In saying that, the presence of a jury assists to democratise the courts. In light of the film, how important is the principle of jury unanimity in criminal cases? In civil matters, the jury often consists of 9 members. Burns strives to know how this happens, drawing on careful descriptions of what trial lawyers do, the rules governing their actions, interpretations of actual trial material, social science findings, and a broad philosophical and political appreciation of the trial as a unique vehicle of American self-government. Nanavati v State of Maharashtra 1959. In practice and in conception the law and its administration are in some important respects indistinguishable from the life of the community in general. In Anglo-Saxon England, juries investigated crimes.
Both sides also have a fixed number set by statute of peremptory challenges, or dismissals the lawyer can make without providing a reason, though peremptory challenges cannot be used to exclude jurors because of their race or gender see Key Jury Decisions. Judges and jurors also have equal positions on sentencing. In short, The Jury and Democracy shows how jury service can change a citizen from a passive spectator into an active political participant. However, technological changes are beginning to cause problems which might make us ask how well the jury system can work in the 21st century. Bringing together legal and social history, Thomas Green provides new perspectives on the character of English culture and on Anglo-American concepts of justice and government.
Judges are at the end of the day still human, and may hold the same old-fashioned or illogical beliefs as anyone else — whether they realise it or not. Selection of jurors from a jury pool occurs when a trial is announced and juror names are randomly selected and called out by the jury pool clerk. The Fully Informed Jury Association www. If citizens use this option in many of the courtroom proceedings, there will be fewer people who are serving time in prison. As always, practicalities can be as important as principles. It is not a trivial distinction since any shift in the burden of proof is a significant change which undermines the safeguard for the citizen. In Canada, juries are also allowed to make suggestions for sentencing periods at the time of sentencing.
After the verdict is given, the jurors are paid a daily stipend for their service and dismissed. Parties to the case, lawyers, and witnesses are not allowed to speak with a member of the jury. The system of trial by jury has changed considerably since it was first introduced into 13th century England to replace the old system of trial by physical ordeal. It is a flawed system that should be stopped. Recent studies have found that in urban jurisdictions, 20 percent or more of the citizenry who receive jury summons fail to report to the courthouse for potential service. On top of that, they might be easily influenced and impressed by strong arguments or by an authority figure which means that the trial might not always be completely fair for both parties.
Criminal Law Review, Crim L. The practice generally was that the jury rules only on questions of fact and guilt; setting the penalty was reserved for the judge. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 325-343. Although this should be done to make sure the decision is evidence based and rational doing so poses great difficulties. A study by the suggested that a civil jury of 12 people was ineffective because a few jurors ended up dominating the discussion, and that seven was a better number because more people feel comfortable speaking, and they have an easier time reaching a unanimous decision. As a result of the Taxquet ruling the juries give nowadays the most important motives that lead them to their verdict. It makes the conviction really mean something because the people are responsible for the conviction, rather than simply the State.
They must be of sound judgement and known for their independence and integrity. Some of the advantages to these methods include cost effectiveness and time and effort saving measures. In Anglophone jurisdictions, the verdict may be guilty or not guilty ; a verdict of acquittal, based on the state's failure to prove guilt rather than any proof of innocence, is also available in. Did this person feel he or she was fulfilling an important civic duty by serving? Many businesses discourage their employees from serving on juries. In a small number of U. But when they are giving their verdict before the court they are not allowed to give reasons for their decision.