Should we abolish trial by jury?

By Stuart Pemble on May 7, 08 04:02 PM in Law

I have just completed two weeks' jury service at Birmingham Crown Court. At the end of a case, the judge thanked us for having done our job and made the point that lots of people think we should get rid of jury trials. The judge in my case thought that was a bad idea - he is a fan of the jury system - but he did get me thinking.

Currently there is a split between the judge's role and the jury's. Judges decide on what law is relevant - can that bit of evidence be introduced? The jury decides the facts - is the defendant guilty or innocent? The alternative would be to adopt the procedure used in a number of European countries where the judge decides everything - facts and law.

There are a couple of significant downsides to jury service. The most obvious is that it is incredibly disruptive to jurors' lives - both at work and at home. The normal length of service is two weeks but complicated (and more important) cases can last a lot longer. It used to be that there were lots of ways that you could avoid serving. This tended to mean that, instead of being tried by a jury of your peers drawn from a genuine cross-section of society, alleged criminals were tried by a jury made up of people who weren't working for whatever reason, students (out of term time) and people with sympathetic and publicly-spirited employers. Certain jobs - solicitors being one - were completely exempt.

That all changed a few years ago with the government keen to ensure that juries were more representative of the whole community. Jurors are selected at random from the electoral roll. If you are registered to vote, you can be a juror. The question is whether you can really spare 6 months out of the year to be involved in that serious fraud case.

The other main criticism of jury trials is whether, especially in the case of complex frauds and the like, juries are the best people to decide guilt or innocence. The problem is that some of the alleged scams are so complicated that you need a PhD in financial fraud to understand what's going on.

On the other hand, I understand where the judge was coming from. Trial by jury is a long-held tradition in the UK and I for one think that it just feels right. The concern is whether we as a society are prepared to support jury trials as an institution. What do people think?

Comments (4)

Older/Newer

« The Custard Factory - a lesson in avoiding gentrification | Boing Boing... Eh? Where's the celebration then? »

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Should we abolish trial by jury?.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.birminghampost.net/cgi-bin/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/4510

4 Comments

clifford said:

Stuart, you have outlined the acknowledged pros and cons of jury service. But this is a blog. What happened to you? Any interesting cases? Did you feel that being a lawyer helped or hindered etc etc.

May 7, 2008 5:51 PM

Julia Shelton said:

As a law teacher I've recently been teaching my 'A' level students about the role of juries and discussing the advantages and disadvantages of juries trying cases (well, 3% of all Criminal Cases in England & Wales).

I think the issue with juries is that they are completely inconsistent: one randomly selected group of 12 voters may be excellent at sifting the information presented; another 12 may struggle to understand the complexity of the evidence.

However, I do feel that in a truly democratic society that a jury holds a valuable position. It would be all but impossible for the state to incarcerate those it wants rid of when jurors are randomly selected. I always tell my students that juries are a bastion of constitutional freedom and maybe I'm starting to believe that myself.

May 7, 2008 10:54 PM

Stuart Pemble said:

Thanks Clifford and Julia.

Clifford: unfortunately there are quite strict rules on what jurors are allowed to say - in particular, you can't talk about the cases you were involved with so I'm not sure that I'm going to give you the information you are looking for. I can say that I don't think the fact that I am a lawyer made a difference. I have long since forgotten any criminal law I once knew and so I was in exactly the same boat as the rest of the jury. I spent my first week sitting in the jury waiting room - which was dull - and the second week on a trial. I found it to be a huge responsibility and quite draining. I am very glad to have done it but it is a huge (and important) responsibility.

Which brings me onto Julia's comments. I like the sound of "a bastion of constitutional freedom" - I think that's an excellent summary of why jury trials are a good thing.

May 8, 2008 8:48 AM

Thaddeus Hoffmeister said:

Juries should not be abolished for a variety of reasons.

1. Jurors bring fresh eyes and ears to the courtroom. It is too easy to make quick determinations of guilt or innocence after hearing hundreds if not thousands of cases.

2. 12 people working together generally make better decisions than 1 person working separately.

3. Being convicted by one's peers is much easier for the public and the defendant to accept than conviction by someone (the judge) who is completely disimilar from them.

4. Jurors are beholden to no one and thus can make the tough calls.

5. Jury verdicts strengthen democracies, which is why South Korea and Japan have started to use them.

6. Finally, unlike grand juries and peremptory challenges, the abolishment of the jury would deliver a serious blow to the protections afforded the defendant under the Common Law.

May 8, 2008 6:26 PM