Criticism Of The Jury System Essay

There has been as much praise as there is criticism of the jury system. Most critics doubt the competence, rationality and motives of the jury system alleging its only “claim to legitimacy is its archaic root.” Other critics question the ability of the jury system to adapt to complex issues in the modern world coupled with the impact of internet. However, much of this criticism of the jury is not supported by any empirical research. It appears that these criticisms are mainly just “made by appeals to logic, experience and by anecdotes purporting to show jury incompetence or malfeasance.”
This essay argues that the jury is an important and unique institution whose establishment is, and was, legitimate and should be preserved in legal systems
In some countries, the enjoyment of that right is guaranteed by trial by jury. In England, the jury is recognised vide clause 39 of the Magna Carta which provides that no free man can be convicted of a serious crime or subjected to a lengthy term of imprisonment unless, either a body of his fellow citizens or the law of the land, has considered the evidence and satisfied itself, based on that evidence, of his guilt. According to Tocqueville, historically, juries in England were chosen from aristocrats who also made the law, applied it and punished those who disobeyed it. Further, the right to trial by jury was reserved for serious crimes whilst magistrates decided less serious charges. Trial by jury was later exported to English colonies around the
Historically, it was reserved for most criminal and civil disputes in light of colonial Americans’ experience with the British government and its judiciary. Further, after independence, juries were trusted more than professional judges. Most judges had no formal legal background and since juries were neither elected nor subject to electoral recall, it was believed that this reduced chances of their being influenced by external factors. According to Tocqueville, trial by jury has always been applied to every American citizen regardless of their status in society. He observed that the jury appeared to be “as direct and extreme a consequence of the sovereignty of the people as universal suffrage.”
Despite the criticism of the legitimacy of the jury, trial by jury has proven to be successful. In England, juries are fair, efficient and effective . Vidmar observes that “modern commentary on the jury system by scholars and legal practitioners continues to extol its virtues as a vehicle for injecting democratic values into the legal process, as a vesicle of common wisdom, as a guard against judicial power, as an institution for educating people about the