For more than six hundred years—that is, since Magna Carta, in —there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws. But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence.
The Trial by Jury — Should it be Retained? The Advantages and Aisadvantages of the System and its Further Perspectives The jury trial is often considered to be one of the most controversial elements of the criminal justice system in UK and Wales.
In this small research we shall try to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of the jury trial and describe further perspectives of using it in criminal cases. Trial by jury was first introduced in the 12th century by king Henry II, who set up a system where twelve free independent people assigned to arbitrate the land disputes.
After the complete establishment of the jury trial it operated without any remarkable changes, but at the end of the 20th century the public attention was drawn again to the problems connected with jury reliability, rationality, experience and bias. This report presented the main drawbacks of the existing trial system — poor ethnic minority representation, lack of experienced jurors who represent different social layers and the game character of the trial process, where the truth is not so important as victory Davies et al.
The recommendations given in this review were partly brought into life with the adoption of the Criminal Justice Actwhich altered greatly the jury system in UK and Wales and introduced the following innovations: The statistics show that trial by jury is actually very rare.
But not only these restrictions make the access to jury trial very complicated. The main argument here lies in two most essential disadvantages of the trial by jury — its enormous expensiveness and long periods of time to be held.
These problems make the jury trial extremely inconvenient and exhausting both for the defendant and the jurors as they are ordinary people who have to spend lot of their time getting through the court procedures and participating in the trial process.
The qualification rules for the jurors are also often criticized.
As we know, according to the Juries Act there are several qualifications for people willing to serve as juries: The ineligible persons include past and present members of the judiciary, other people who have been concerned with the administration of justice, the clergy and mentally ill people.
The CJA disqualifies individuals who have served a sentence of penal servitude in the past ten years, have been sentenced to a term of lifetime penal servitude or who have been released on bail pending trial at the time the jury is summoned.
But my opinion is that the main problems are caused not by these qualifications, rules or governmental restrictions. No, these problems lie in the human nature and in the fact that the jurors are subject to human errors.
Even if selected according to the rules, some of them are well educated and some are not; some are very responsible and some are not, some try to get better understanding of the case and the evidence and some are just trying to return home as soon as possible.
The main advantages of the jury trial are: The only legal requirement for a juror is that he knows the facts involved in case being tried. The judge guides the juries in determining the facts they can admit into evidence and the ones they must exclude. Many jurors encounter complicated problems far beyond their training and experience.
But the jurors are not only unskilled and inexperienced, they often disregard logic presented by the lawyers because of their prejudices, past experience or moral sentiment.
Many of them are likely to follow the majority and make the same verdict as the stronger personalities who impose their opinion.
For some jury members it is better to go with the majority and return home sooner than try to understand the evidence and make their own independent conclusion.Essay on Jury Trial Analysis.
Jury Trial Analysis CJA/ October 13, This paper will be about Jury Trial Analysis.
I will give a analysis in which the paper I will identify and discuss the steps in a jury trial. - Jury Trial The history of jury trial dates back many centuries in which time the role and status of jury members have changed considerably as have the number and range of cases tried by the jury system.
That the trial by jury is all that has been claimed for it in the preceding chapter, is proved both by the history and the language of the Great Charter of English Liberties, to which we are to look for a true definition of the trial by jury, and of which the guaranty for that trial is the vital, and most memorable, part.
[tags: Trial by Jury ] Strong Essays words (4 pages) Essay about The Jury Of A Jury - The presence of a jury in our legal system today is to create a sense of democracy in our society, as the presence of a jury avoids the possibility of corruption, similar to the idea of separate power, it is to assure that no one has enough power to abuse.
A jury is defined as a body of persons convened by process of law to represent the public at a trial or inquest and to discharge upon oath or affirmation defined public duties. [ 3 ] The jury's duty is to return verdicts upon issues joined in courts of civil and criminal jurisdiction or findings of fact at coroners' courts.
Blog Home > Essay Samples > Trial by Jury: Pros and Cons Trial by Jury: Pros and Cons All over the globe countries make sure to use a certain type of a jury system, most probably because they still haven’t found a better method to consistently ensure that all the defendants are provided with the fairest trail.