Is the Jury system overrated?

Question

Many innocent people have been jailed and later released when their convictions have been quashed. Sometimes this happens when the jury's verdict contradicts the evidence.

Answer 1

Increasingly complex forensic evidence and its importance in assessing the merits of a case bring inherent problems to the jury system. You must ensure all members of the jury are able to understand the evidence. Things like religious belief or cultural background can complicate the way jurors process this information.Also keeping a juror focussed upon the evidence in a long and complex forensic list of evidence is a feat in itself.

What other options are better though? Panels of judges would inevitably lead to a process of conservative verdicts. Circle sentencing can really only be useful in minor offences and common assaults/burglary charges.

The solution to the evidence problem is surely to ensure that more lawyers have qualifications in science or forensics so that they are better able to explain the complexities to the jurors. Expert witnesses need to be tutored in using plain English where possible so that explanations are fully understood. The jury needs to be able to ask for clarification on points of evidence if they are unsure without feeling that they look dull or inattentive.

Overall the jury system has served western society rather well. I would certainly rather take my chances with my peers than face a military or religious court. We can always improve things, don't get me  wrong, but I think I would receommend holding onto the jury system a while longer at least.

Answer 2

especially in all these rape cases where DNA is clearing men who have been in prison for decades based on the false idetification by the women.  

Answer 3

It is currently used only in Great Britain, France and the former colonies of those two European powers, including the U.S. Japan, which has relied on trial judges only, will be starting a jury system in the autumn of next year. It will be interesting to see if they have the same problems that we have.  

Answer 4

I think that most people understands the flaws in the jury system because anytime people are involve with something, we have our own perpectives and prejudices so justice can not be handed out fairly.

The only way to eliminate some this bias is to only let common races judge each other. In other words, whites judge whites, blacks judge blacks, asians judge asians, etc. It will never happen but at least you would have true jury of your peers.

Answer 5

Yes, it may be overrated, but the difficulty is coming up with a better solution.

Answer 6

No, in fact, it is seriously underrated and underutilized by citizens.

The jury unit consisting of only 12 people have within their power the ability stop an overbearing and intrusive government in its tracks, even if it is as large and powerful as the Federal one.

In essence, in criminal cases, a jury will agree with the government or disagree with the government.

In a constitutional context, if a jury believes a law is unjust it has the power to render the law mute.

"If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence ... and the courts must abide by that decision."

US v Moylan, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1969, 417 F.2d at 1006

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its Constitution."  Thomas Jefferson

If a jury agrees with the law, but also believes an individual has been unjustly prosecuted under it, they have the power to acquit.

"It is not only his right, but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."  John Adams

If you believe any innocent individual's ability to avoid conviction at the hands of a single government agent in the form of a judge is enhanced, you are mistaken.

Judges will usually side with the law merely because it is a law.

The ability of the jury to protect individuals from unjust laws and unjust prosecutions is unparalleled and it matters not the evidence if a law is unconstitutional.

To give up the jury system is to surrender to government power.

The government cannot enforce when it cannot convict.

If you place no trust in the jury system that decides cases by a vote of people, then why place trust in a system that elects government by vote of people.

A befuddled jury is no more, nor less, dangerous to liberty than a befuddled majority.