What Is The History Of The Jury System

The History of the Jury System The jury system has been around for thousands of years. In fact, the concept of it can be traced to Athens, Greece as far back as around 400 B.C. Being centuries old it is understandable that the jury system developed to what many people understand as today's jury systems.

Early jury systems had different roles than the roles of today's juries. The earliest system documented did hear the arguments in legal cases, however they did not have a say in the legal actions taken to apply the law. In Europe, juries did not actually apply law until the 12th century. In Great Britain, the use of the jury began from struggle in Rome with the popes authority. Those who served on the jury were only regular citizens with
In Great Britain, it was under the rule of several kings and the occurrence of significant events that resulted in the evolution of early juries. Under the rule of King Henry II (1133-1189), groundwork for Britain's present day Grand Jury was developed with Clarendon's assembly. The assembly was used by King Henry II to regain the power of the crown which was illegally taken by the archbishop Thomas Becket. In the assembly, “12 “good and lawful men” in each village were assembled to reveal the names of those suspected of crimes” (“History of the Grand Jury”). These 12 “good and lawful man” took an oath to: “... carry out their duties faithfully, that they would aggrieve no one through enmity nor deference to anyone through love, and that they would conceal those things that they had heard” (“History of the Grand Jury”). Also, there were two forms of juries during this time: civil and criminal. Then, under the rule of King John (1166-1216) – son of King Henry II– dissatisfied barons confronted him in 1215 and forced him to sign the Magna Carta.
This called for a line to be made between the judge and jury to end any interference in verdicts. The first instance that called for changes to be made was in response to an incident that occurred during the Bushell Case of 1670. When the jury found Quaker activists not guilty of unlawful assembly the judge would not accept the verdict. The jury was ordered to reconsider their verdict and was refused sustenance until they came back with a guilty verdict. The jury stuck with their 'not guilty' verdict and, subsequently, was fined and imprisoned, not to be released until such fines were paid. The Court of Common Pleas requested the judge release the jury as “jurors could not be punished for their verdict” (“History of the Jury System”). This event established that jurors could not be challenged for their verdict because they are the only authority to fact in the decision of a case. Another instance that called for changes was in 1960 during the R v. McKenna case. The judge of this case threatened jurors to come up with a verdict in a set amount of time. If they did not come back with a verdict they were to be imprisoned for the night. The jury came back with a verdict to avoid imprisonment, however their verdict was appealed due to interference from the judge. As a result of this event, judges are not allowed to interfere