Do Jurors Deliver Justice
Do jurors deliver justice?
The professional judges and jurors, constituting a committee, personify themselves two various springs, pursuing one aim: an impartial and an objective adjudication and rendering a fair verdict. However, a judge embodies the judicial tradition, power, professional knowledge and gathered experience, while the jurors contribute to a trial a sense of public conscience, which is strictly contained in the mind of fellow citizens, which at times have a diverse idea of justice contrary to the idea of judiciary manpower. As a result, there emerges a special contest between official and unofficial origins of justice system, that delivers unchallenged authority to the judgment rendered by the jury inquest.
Undoubtedly, every system has its own merits and dismerits from different perspectives. Though, juries have their passionate defenders, including many lawyers, it is impossible to deny that in its present form jury has some great defects. At first, as long as the jurors are very slow, it impedes the judicial process. On the second hand, it’s very expensive partly because it is slow and happens in the crowncourt, which is an expensive tribunal, and it is surprisingly accident prone. Moreover, it’s inherent, I believe, putting 12 inexperienced people, which are selected completely at random from the population, and leaving them to decide without anyone toward watching them, without their guarantee to give any reasons for their decision at the end. Thus, it is abundant evidence, that this system has an obvious problem of quality control, which is vital, as it has to be maintained even at the risk of miscarriages of justice. Another problem about no jury reasons is that we don’t know at the end of the jury trial, whether the jury convicted on un/intelligible grounds for un/acceptable reasons. It is important to note that the jury gives no reason for its verdict of guilty or not guilty, no questions, which are permitted afterwards, that might
The professional judges and jurors, constituting a committee, personify themselves two various springs, pursuing one aim: an impartial and an objective adjudication and rendering a fair verdict. However, a judge embodies the judicial tradition, power, professional knowledge and gathered experience, while the jurors contribute to a trial a sense of public conscience, which is strictly contained in the mind of fellow citizens, which at times have a diverse idea of justice contrary to the idea of judiciary manpower. As a result, there emerges a special contest between official and unofficial origins of justice system, that delivers unchallenged authority to the judgment rendered by the jury inquest.
Undoubtedly, every system has its own merits and dismerits from different perspectives. Though, juries have their passionate defenders, including many lawyers, it is impossible to deny that in its present form jury has some great defects. At first, as long as the jurors are very slow, it impedes the judicial process. On the second hand, it’s very expensive partly because it is slow and happens in the crowncourt, which is an expensive tribunal, and it is surprisingly accident prone. Moreover, it’s inherent, I believe, putting 12 inexperienced people, which are selected completely at random from the population, and leaving them to decide without anyone toward watching them, without their guarantee to give any reasons for their decision at the end. Thus, it is abundant evidence, that this system has an obvious problem of quality control, which is vital, as it has to be maintained even at the risk of miscarriages of justice. Another problem about no jury reasons is that we don’t know at the end of the jury trial, whether the jury convicted on un/intelligible grounds for un/acceptable reasons. It is important to note that the jury gives no reason for its verdict of guilty or not guilty, no questions, which are permitted afterwards, that might