Research Paper on American Jury System

Introduction

The jury system is considered the foundation of the democratic principles of representation outlined in the US constitution. However, the system has roots that trace back to medieval England. It also incorporates parallels from other countries, such as Canada and Australia. The most ancient of its forms required an accused person to find some compurgators who would swear on his behalf in a bid to avoid the punishment. During the thirteenth century, to ascertain a specific crime, members of the jury would go themselves to research to determine whether crimes were committed, and if, so by whom. During the time, unlike today, decisions were based on hearsay and attitude (Hollander 475). This study seeks to critically analyze the history, composition, and changes that have made the jury system instrumental in the American justice system. It is advanced that the jury system is both representative and fair after changes that saw the inclusion of women and nonwhites in the jury service, limitation of the powers of legal counsels to influence the composition of juries during trials, and expansion of safeguards against external influences.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The jury system came into effect when twelve men sat before a judge listening to evidence while the accused spoke. Since the defendants had no lawyer, there was limited participation on their part. The end of the 18th century saw the defendants represented by counsels and was allowed to swear too under oath, a practice that was not allowed before. One notable case involved William Mead and William Penn, the later founders of Pennsylvania, who were accused of unlawfully preaching to a large gathering. Despite the substantial evidence brought before the court, the jury returned the court with the "not guilty" verdict, as the charges were not based on a valid law. As a result, the jurors were imprisoned (Lawson, 119), which just shows how the American jury system has evolved over time

The system currently compromises criminal grand juries, civil and criminal petit juries. The role of the grand jury is to determine whether or not there is sufficient evidence to indict a person for a crime. Further, it has a composition of 16-23 members, and proceedings are usually behind closed doors. The defendant, unlike with petit jury does not appear before the grand jury.

Petit or trial jury is used to prosecute criminal cases in the United States. It further consists of 6 - 12 people with private deliberations. Their primary role is to determine whether the accused has violated the law in a specified case (Fun, 607). With this, they may decide whether the person is guilty of a crime. Similarly, the seventh amendment of the constitution gives the right to trial by jury in a civil case. During the reign of King Henry, jurors were increased to twelve to minimize the likelihood of bribery and corruption. Despite falling out of favor in England, it remains in use in the United States. Usually, the required composition is twelve jurors for each trial, and the verdict has to be unanimous. In many states, however, the number can be reduced to six following an agreement by both sides or through legislative enactment.

Juror selection is performed through the driver's license lists or voter registration forms. Prospective candidates are then pre-qualified by answering questions about disabilities, citizenship, and command of the English language or other conditions that might exempt them from this role. They are then summoned once they are deemed qualified. Notably, the federal system uses the Jury Selection Act. However, in the 20th century, the pool from which jurors were picked became fairer in representation with respect to race, gender, and ethnicity. It was a result of three crucial amendments to the Constitution, which are the 19th, Women suffrage, the 26th 18-year-old vote, and the 24th abolition of the poll tax. The 1964 Voting Rights Act which required the literacy test for voting was abolished. Along with that, lawsuits challenging the methods used in the selection of the jury were put into consideration. As a result, voter registration lists can be supplemented with other documents such as driver's licenses and databanks such as welfare. Moreover, juries now represent the vast diversity of the American people. In the early part of the century, women never served on juries however equal rights have been observed as in most cases women outnumber men in that position. With this in mind, people of color and African Americans have slowly been absorbed into the jury pool and box as well in the courtroom. In high-profile criminal cases, however, the selection of jurors is widely manipulated by attorneys in a bid to influence the outcome of a case. The United States Supreme Court has found it unconstitutional for prosecutors to exclude African Americans from juries (Robbers 87).

Critics have proposed the abolishment of the federal jury system. They argue that the system is slow and results in a backlog of cases. Besides, elimination of the system could provide better administration of justice. However, recent research shows that while civil trial processes seem slow before a jury, judge-tried takes more time in the docket. Moreover, supporters of this approach concur that only reforms, not abolishing, are necessary as there is no better alternative.

Notably, ignorance of the jurors has been criticized as a threat to the administration of justice. For example, a research study by the University of Chicago concluded that of the jurors who participated more than half believed that the defendant had to prove his innocence. Scholars have noted this prejudgment. The increased use of administrative procedures in law enforcement has however shown a significant challenge for jury trials. Additionally, some legal journalists speculate that this system encourages corporal punishment for those accused. As the jury system continues to evolve, of importance is the ability of the community to participate in checking and containing government power.

Jury trials are an essential element of a democratic system. It helps to obtain fairness in the delivery of judgments. On the contrary, its use is now on the decline as it is evident that jurors cannot participate in high-profile criminal matters. Scholars have pointed out that most people believe appearing before a jury may help them get fair trials as in this case their peers try one as opposed to a judge who may not relate to their circumstances. Another advantage is that for someone who has been accused of a serious offense, the number of people involved reassures them as some may have leniency (Langbein 126). The idea of a unanimous decision may favor the accused as jurors opposing are overshadowed by their partners. Moreover, in most nations, if one is not satisfied with a jury verdict, there is a guaranteed level of appeal as opposed to a single judge. This approach protects jurors as it is considered illegal to try to threaten or intimidate members as that would cause additional charges. Again it is difficult to target an entire group of people as opposed to one magistrate. On the other hand, as the people on the jury do not have legal knowledge, an in-depth understanding of complex documents that may require forensic evidence may be compromised. Personal biases towards a specific group of people can affect their decision-making. Notably, minority groups such as the black community can be disadvantaged by a trial if the jury is composed of their Caucasian partners (Hollander 476).

When some members of the jury belong to the minorities group, and the accused criminal belongs to the same community the prosecution may challenge and have them removed from the ongoing trial. If a trial period is extended, hasty verdicts may be obtained, and this compromises a fair hearing. Consequently, striking juries from trials show a system that is not entirely fair.

Conclusion

The debate surrounding the jury system whether to be abolished or not has lasted throughout the last decade. Some scholars argue that the system was invented due to an insufficiency of well-trained judges as in the case of John Peter Zenger. This system has numerous disadvantages as the jury is not legally trained. American President Thomas Jefferson at the time noted that it would be better to leave people out of legislature as the making of laws is not as important as executing them. However, the jury system despite its disadvantages has led to the inclusion of minorities to exercise their democratic right in the judicial service. Their participation puts pressure on the government to recognize them in every area even in the political arena.

Works Cited

Fung, Archon. "Continuous institutional innovation and the pragmatic conception of democracy." Polity 44.4 (2012): 609-624

Hollander, Blumoff, Rebecca, and Tom R. Tyler. "Procedural justice in negotiation: Procedural fairness, outcome acceptance, and integrative potential." Law & Social Inquiry33.2 (2008): 473-500.

Langbein, John, Renee Lerner, and Bruce Lawson, Tamara F. "Before the verdict and beyond the verdict: The CSI infection within modern criminal jury trials." Loy. U. Chi. LJ 41 (2009): 119.

Robbers, Monica LP. "Blinded by science: The social construction of reality in forensic television shows and its effect on criminal jury trials." Criminal Justice Policy Review19.1 (2008): 84-102.

Smith. "History of the common law: The development of Anglo-American legal institutions."(2009).