Arguments Against The Jury System

The jury system might be outliving its usefulness to society and the public because of its perceived time consumption and the tax dollars that are funneled into running juries. The jury system was instituted by the British government in 1846. These trials were often biased and were conducted with secrecy that was not open to the public. Later the constitution mandates the right of trial by jury for all civil cases, but included that they be “speedy, public, and fair” (Rottenerg 4) to ensure that they don’t turn into the trials that were held in eighteenth century Britain. The jury system should not be mandated by the constitution because it is very time consuming and, among other problems can, at times, be biased. The jury system can
be very time consuming, which is why it has been belittled over the years. On page thirteen of Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, Juror three states “Right.
This better be fast” in response to the foreman asking if the jury was ready. This is a good example of how most of the public views a trial by jury, which is just something to get done and over with to get back to regular life. It also symbolizes how the jury system takes a very long time in most civil cases to come to a conclusion. Another example of how the people have shown as dislike for juries is that “in England, where the jury originated, it has been all but abolished in civil cases” (Dershowitz 455), whereas the constitution forbids its abolishment. This has not stopped the jury from being belittled. The size that is required at the maximum number of people on a jury has been adjusted from twelve to only six and it no longer requires a unanimous vote in most countries, but to a two-thirds majority vote. This means that only four out of six people need to vote one way for it to be the standing ruling. That is if the jury even going to be tried, most cases are settled before the trial. The unpredictable results and the money involved in running a trial has also “driven many institutional litigants […] to demand that their customers waive trial by jury and accept […] arbitration” (Dershowitz 455). This allows them to make the process of settling
disputes faster. The jury system is not always unbiased and can be influenced by personal opinions and by lawyers. When the juror where talking early in the play, juror ten makes a bias statement that can translate to what may happen in some juries today: “You can’t believe a word they say. You know that” (Rose 16). The jury was to decide the fate of a nineteen year old latino or black man that grew up in the slums. This issue of bias did not play a major role at the beginning of the play, but became more of a problem when where were only three jurors left voting not guilty and one of them was voting because of bias against the race that he calls “they” in the quote stated earlier. Another upcoming threat to the jury system is that “sophisticated social scientists are becoming increasingly involved […] in trying to select jurors who will favor their side” (Dershowitz 456). These threaten the randomness of juries when a wealthy individual is being tried, because these scientists are very expensive. The jury system has been seeing a decline in popularity over the years since it has been mandated by the constitution. It should not be mandated because it is slow, inefficient, costly, and can be influenced by many factors that almost negate its effectiveness as being a fair and random sample of the tried persons peers.