The relationship between law and justice has always been a topic of great controversy. Many people rely fully on the law to bring about, what they believe, to be justice, while others are of the opinion that the law is too ‘black and white’ to be wholly regarded as just.
The debate of whether a jury is an effective way of bringing forth justice has been present for centuries. The opinion that it is not a reliable way to convict or acquit defendants is increasingly communal, while others agree that “by pointing out that the right to jury trial has existed since 1166, might help to make a popular case for its continued existence.”
“A jury will pass verdict in any trial at Crown Court where the defendant has pleaded not guilty to a charge in the indictment and where that plea has not been accepted by the prosecution.” For a lot of defendants, a jury trial is most welcomed as it is thought that there is a lesser chance of conviction, however “the jury are responsible for under 10 per cent of all Crown Court acquittals.” This figure is relatively low, prompting other members of the public to assume that perhaps the jury are convicting wrongly. The jury’s decision is believed to be based on the facts that are presented throughout the case, without bias or personal feelings inflicting their decision. However, by asking randomly selected members of the public, whom are not professionals, to make a decision on a case, leaves much room for debate as to whether they have the ability to deliver justice through that decision.
Although one can easily argue that juries do not have a beneficial impact on the law and its relationship with justice, there are many people who believe that a diverse opinion between the jurors is the fairest and most efficient way to deliver justice. “Devlin called them a bulwark against oppression, a safeguard of our liberties since the common sense...