Advantages & Disadvantages of the Jury System
THE JURY SYSTEM
THE NATURE AND COMPOSITION OF THE JURY
The jury system of a trial is an essential element of the democratic process. It attempts to secure fairness in the justice system. Traditionally, the jury system has been viewed as a cornerstone of common law procedure. However, the use of the system of trial by jury is on the decline. Today, its use differs, depending on whether (a) it is a civil or criminal matter, and (b) in criminal matters, whether it is a summary or an indictable offence.
The modern jury is composed of a maximum of 12 members. Typically, in murder and treason, the jury consists of 12 members, while in other criminal trials it may be 9. In civil matters, the jury often consists of 9 members. Before this century, the jury system was widely believed to be one of the chief safeguards of rights against the abuse of judicial power. Trial by jury was felt to be an essential and inviolable right, a security blanket to ensure the liberties of citizens as against the State.
The notion of the jury system as an essential feature of the democratic process is not a contemporary one. Interestingly, the original jury was the King's judges, and there was no concept of the independence of the judiciary as we know it today.
Essentially, the jury's purpose is to be the sole judges of the facts as opposed to the law. In contemporary times, we believe that, to be judges of fact, one must come to the court ignorant of the facts. Impartiality in adjudicating is therefore based on ignorance of the facts. Strangely, however, the original method used by the ancient jury was just the opposite. Indeed, in Henry 11's time, the jury was drawn from the persons in the neighbourhood who were taken to have knowledge of all the relevant facts. This concept, peculiar to modern minds, was later changed to that of: a body whose duty is to hearken to the evidence and return a verdict accordingly, excluding from their minds all that they have not heard in open
THE NATURE AND COMPOSITION OF THE JURY
The jury system of a trial is an essential element of the democratic process. It attempts to secure fairness in the justice system. Traditionally, the jury system has been viewed as a cornerstone of common law procedure. However, the use of the system of trial by jury is on the decline. Today, its use differs, depending on whether (a) it is a civil or criminal matter, and (b) in criminal matters, whether it is a summary or an indictable offence.
The modern jury is composed of a maximum of 12 members. Typically, in murder and treason, the jury consists of 12 members, while in other criminal trials it may be 9. In civil matters, the jury often consists of 9 members. Before this century, the jury system was widely believed to be one of the chief safeguards of rights against the abuse of judicial power. Trial by jury was felt to be an essential and inviolable right, a security blanket to ensure the liberties of citizens as against the State.
The notion of the jury system as an essential feature of the democratic process is not a contemporary one. Interestingly, the original jury was the King's judges, and there was no concept of the independence of the judiciary as we know it today.
Essentially, the jury's purpose is to be the sole judges of the facts as opposed to the law. In contemporary times, we believe that, to be judges of fact, one must come to the court ignorant of the facts. Impartiality in adjudicating is therefore based on ignorance of the facts. Strangely, however, the original method used by the ancient jury was just the opposite. Indeed, in Henry 11's time, the jury was drawn from the persons in the neighbourhood who were taken to have knowledge of all the relevant facts. This concept, peculiar to modern minds, was later changed to that of: a body whose duty is to hearken to the evidence and return a verdict accordingly, excluding from their minds all that they have not heard in open