Should we abolish trial by jury?

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.

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.

Jury trial is not something that can be thrown away lightly - it's a constitutional right. Our constitutional rights are being eroded at a rapid pace - summary justice in the guise of parking fines, speeding tickets, etc. being the fastest growing erosion of constitutional rights. We need to reverse this process.

Well, after much teaching from 'Julia', it seemed to have been drilled into me that juries, are, in fact a good idea, as they are cost effective and time effective, by enlarge.

However, the prospect of a judge making all of the decisions in a trial does not seem right to me. This country is a democracy, and by being a democracy, we follow the 'literal rule' in judicial precedent, we follow the words of parliament.

The idea of a judge making all the decisions in a trial, to me, seems to undermined the whole idea of democracy in out system of law, and an input from the public is needed in a trial to see current issues in places, such as the outer parts of cities, that the judge would not know anything about.

I finished my stint on jury service yesterday and am firmly of the opinion that juries are far more democratic. I was on two cases and the juries were truly representative of society with a broad age range, pretty equal in terms of gender and had a variety of ethnic backgrounds (despite being randomly selected).

I must admit to speaking to a number of people though who didn't want to be on a jury and who cracked jokes about finding a particular verdict quickly so that they could finish early. I also met one young chap who didn't want to be there and was pretty uneducated. How would you put someone like this on a fraud or embezzlement case?
Should it be that certain crimes perhaps have professional jurors who have reached a particular educational standard?

The first case I was on could not reach a majority verdict which was very disappointing to me and in the second case we decided on a unanimous 'guilty' verdict.

My problem is more to do with the soliciors. I'm sure some have missed their calling and really would be brilliant film actors. After being discharged from the second case I bumped into the defence solicitor around the corner. I didn't attempt to talk to him but he clearly recognised me and he laughingly said "you didn't take long to reach that verdict". From his tone and a couple of other innocuous comments it was clear he knew we had made the right decision in finding his client guilty.

I realise a defendent is entitled to get the best solicitor to defend them but it strikes me that the defence lawyer was so good in making us really think about it that, with another bunch of 12 jurors, a different decision could have been made purely because he was so good at his acting role and justice would not have been done.

Perhaps I'm naive but it seems to me they are more interesting in winning 'the game' and beating the opposition's solicitor than achieving the correct verdict to satisfy the community.

I think having a jury is a fair way of doing things.

Haha, i am also doing an essay as im writing this in my legal studies class. this is my stimulus - "Juries should be abolished, as they no longer serve their purpose and cost the State of Queensland too much to convene." Obviously im from Australia but this debate has been very helpful in getting the pros and cons and others' opinions so thankyou if you have anything you would like to share with me or might help me haha you're welcome to. =]

thanks Monique. I hope the essay was a success