Trial By Jury
It isn’t arduous to see why some may question the efficiency of trial by jury and whether it should, and is able to, continue to discover innocence or guilt. Regarding the trial of Vicky Pryce, the failure of the jury within the hearing conjured ridicule and disdain from the judge and the media. The case deeply unsettled the trust of many in the system. The eight women and four men were dismissed after illustrating “fundamental deficits of understanding” (Jacobson, Hunter & Kirby, 2015, p. 55). Their profuse questions for the judge were deemed as unintelligent and unnecessary and so a costly re-trial was required. Consequently, this ordeal provoked a stronger desire for the abolition of trial by jury, to be replaced by a single judge as a more
…show more content…
Juries don’t have to provide any reasoning, making it exceedingly tough to distinguish whether juries have truly understood the evidence in order to acquire a just verdict. Monitoring a juror’s attitude and how seriously they are taking their duty is also, in essence, unachievable due to the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The act states it is inadmissible of the court “to obtain, solicit or disclose any statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast” (Dodd, 2012). Consequently, section 8 makes any justifiable investigation into jury deliberation very …show more content…
Ford 1989 case, the Court of Appeal upheld that there is no right to a multiracial jury. Ford appealed for multi-ethnic jurors which was repudiated by the judge. It was deemed that the method of random selection in use was the most appropriate approach to take in attaining a just verdict. The judge had no right or justification to release any able jurors with the sole purpose of acquiring a multiracial jury. If a judge discharged a juror without good reason, there could be allegations of partiality and jury tampering within the trial. The idea of removing jurors, based on their ethnicity, is also scornfully depreciatory of the members of jury who have to leave as a result. In order to confirm that juries demonstrate public integrity, it is vital to ensure that the procedure of jury selection is extensive, and not underrepresenting ethnic
Juries don’t have to provide any reasoning, making it exceedingly tough to distinguish whether juries have truly understood the evidence in order to acquire a just verdict. Monitoring a juror’s attitude and how seriously they are taking their duty is also, in essence, unachievable due to the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The act states it is inadmissible of the court “to obtain, solicit or disclose any statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast” (Dodd, 2012). Consequently, section 8 makes any justifiable investigation into jury deliberation very …show more content…
Ford 1989 case, the Court of Appeal upheld that there is no right to a multiracial jury. Ford appealed for multi-ethnic jurors which was repudiated by the judge. It was deemed that the method of random selection in use was the most appropriate approach to take in attaining a just verdict. The judge had no right or justification to release any able jurors with the sole purpose of acquiring a multiracial jury. If a judge discharged a juror without good reason, there could be allegations of partiality and jury tampering within the trial. The idea of removing jurors, based on their ethnicity, is also scornfully depreciatory of the members of jury who have to leave as a result. In order to confirm that juries demonstrate public integrity, it is vital to ensure that the procedure of jury selection is extensive, and not underrepresenting ethnic