The value of juries
For many years people have been trying to answer the question: How valuable is the jury in modern times? The question is a very controversial one.
On the one hand the jury has a lot of history behind it. Even in old times it was considered as a bastion of the liberty of the subjects against repressive governments. Today the jury system is the ordinary citizen's link with the legal process. Jury is supposed to protect individual liberty (свободу личности) and justice. A commonsense (здравое и выдержанное) decision based on the facts is taken by ordinary citizens and not by professionals. So it should be fair and impartial and not affected by any professional sentiments.
On the other hand, the jury system is widely criticized. The reasons are: high acquittal rates (большое количество оправдательных приговоров); unsuitable or subjective jurors; intimidation (запугивание) of jurors; time and costs (длительность процессов и издержки).
Among the people who have ADVOCATED jury throughout history are William Shakespeare, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams
Those who seem to OPPOSE jury include G.K. Chesterton, Lewis Carroll and other prominent figures.
Generally speaking, it's clear that jury system is far from ideal.
Here is the collection of arguments
For Juries |
Against Juries |
If a defendant is tried by a true "jury of his peers," then a jury trial would perhaps result in justice. Trial by Jury is part of what the English-speaking nations of the world understand by democracy. If somebody can come up with a better non-biased judicial system then please feel free. But until then, there is no better alternative. The jury are deciding the truth of the facts, presented to them: are the police telling the truth, is the state behaving correctly, is the defendant telling them the truth, has somebody been injured, has somebody been wronged by the individual who is standing in the You don’t have to be a professor, a judge or a senior police officer to answer a question like that. You just have to be an ordinary person, and that’s what the jury represent – ordinary people. |
Currently jury is selected from the people who are not peers of the defendant, who know nothing of the case, and have nothing better to do with their time; then a jury trial becomes a circus Juries composed of ordinary people are by their very nature more influenced by emotion than facts. In the Netherlands there is no trial by jury, still there are no signs of despotic police state, democracy going to pot, or personal freedom going down the drain. The jury system is a lottery and you have no guarantee that the people have an adequate grasp of the concepts involved.
|