Is trial by jury the best way to determine the truth in court?

Question

Since ancient Athens juries have decided on matters of justice. This manifests itself today as 12 people, randomly selected from the electoral roll, reviewing all available evidence and coming to a, preferably unanimous, decision by discussion of the evidence in private. Do you trust your fellow members of the general public to come to a reasoned decision? The key word here is reasoned. Are you satisfied with the powers of logic of the vast majority of the general public? I will be intrested to hear people's opinions and arguments on this point.

Richard Dawkins has written an essay on this topic here: http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1997-11-16trialbyjury.shtml

Answer 1

In Florida, it is only 6 people unless it is a death penalty case. And often the judge tells them how they must vote. What a sorry excuse for a justice system.

Answer 2

On this you can use what I like to call the "Number's-Theory". You have 13 &1/2, Or 1&1/2. Here is how it work's most of the time: The 13 &1/2, That's 12 Juror's, 1 Judge, and 1/2 a chance. The other, 1 Judge, 1/2 a chance. If I were to ever be faced with having to appear in court, I would have to go with 13 &1/2. Chances are not only better, But you also have to consider when it is just up to a Judge, Chances are you are not going to get a favorable decision. They have heard it all before, And tend to be a bit more callous than a jury of your piers. Where with a jury, you have 12 different minds working at it, and it's fair to say that at least 8 of them are not nearly as calloused as the judge. Just a Theory though.

Answer 3

It's either trust other citizens, or trust the judge for everything.

Defendants already have the option of waiving a jury trial, and going with just a bench trial, having the judge determine both fact and law. So, there's no requirement that they rely on the decisions of a jury.

But the way the game is played, juries are often easier to convince than a judge that reasonable doubt exists. That's the key, reasonable doubt. And that's supposed to be based on the common beliefs and perceptions of the average prudent citizen.

I like the idea of separate sub-juries, two sets of 6, or three sets of 4. That could improve accuracy in the result. But it would also drastically change the game as attorneys are currently trained. And while I think it would yield better results, it would be met with some resistance.

Answer 4

The truth tends not to matter! All a court is interested in is whether there is enough evidence to make a jury satisfied of guilt so that they can be "sure". If a jury is not sure then they must return a verdict of "not guilty" which should not be confused with innocence! Not guilty and innocent are two entirely separate concepts and therefore "what really happened" or the "truth" may never be known!

Answer 5

First off, while the potential jurors are selected at random, those who actually sit on the jury are not. The lawyers from both sides question the potential jurors. Each side is able to dismiss a certain number of the potential jurors for any reason they want. Those that are left are the ones who sit for the actual case. The jury usually ends up leaning one way or the other for this reason. This often times means an impartial jury of peers is non-existent.

Answer 6

I have never been called for jury service because of a Nomadic life... not having resided in any one place for long enough, though I am 61 years of age and do consider myself to be completely suitable and unbiased... in other words, I would see the whole picture, without preconceived judgement, personal prejudice, due to media hype, or public opinion.

I have a number of friends and relations who have performed this service, whom I always considered to be seriously suspect, about their suitability, in that they do have some very dogmatic views and personal prejudices. So much so, that were I on trial, I'd worry about their suitability to make a fair decision.

When I knew them at the time, I can say that they never discussed the cases, but in their cases I knew, this was more through superstition and fear of punishment and imprisonment, should they say a word outside the jury room.

They did adhere to rules of silence, which are imperitive, but I found myself wondering at the time, about their general attitude toward certain sections of society, during private conversations, and worrying, for the person on trial.

Having said this, I do still believe that trying people by jury is the correct way to go, that to change this way of dealing with those who stand on trial, to remove it from the public and afford it to the learned and the judges only, would be flawed and seriously wrong.

A jury is a wider group, right across society, it is where the classes mix together and where every mind and every type of educational level, is gathered together. Life learned people, as opposed to the book learned, can often have a far more valuable imput and fairer understanding of a case, when making judgement on their peers. This applies to all three classes in the UK.

Perhaps when class is gone, then and only then, can a different method be considered?

And we already know, by dint of living in society, that for every one person who is seriously biased, or unsuitable, there is another in there somewhere, who is unknown, quieter, keeping their thoughts and opinions closer to their chests and quite often, it is these stronger unknown quantities, who will be more mature in outlook and fairer in their judgement.

We've all seen movies where just one determined jurer can take eleven others and slowly change an entire preconceived attitude, and this is not far fetched at all... I've personally done this in a group, where I could see prejudice myself... and because I already have the verbal skills, I'd like to think that were I called, was I to see an instant judgement made, without first affording the subject a fair hearing, without serious debate through all the evidence presented.... I have the skills to make that difference, and turn the tide of attitude, because I know for sure I don't let go, where I see injustice.

And I like to think, though I have never yet been arrested or broken any laws that set me before a jury, should it ever happen to me, that inside that group of twelve, sits one other person on my wave length, with the same high standard of seeing justice done. Because I know that just one person like myself, would make that difference for me.

We all know that one bad apple makes the whole basketful go off... so it is with people... they're open to suggestion, we've always known this too.

The ethos of the jury is the knowledge that this also works in opposition, that one seriously minded and untouchable, unbendable, unbiased mind, will takes the facts and not the preconceived attitude, that this is enough, to make a difference and afford fair play.

Mostly, you'll have more than one such mind in any jury anyway, since I am far from unique... so yes... I'm decidedly for keeping jury service, and for trusting that, on the whole, twelve other carefully selected citizens, is still by far, a fairer and right way to uphold our law.

Answer 7

The jury's are really biased and they just go along with what the media tells them. Also the jury selection process itself makes true unbiased rulings impossible. Lawyers just select whoever they think will be most easily swayed by their positions.

So no I don't trust trial by jury. I'd rather take my chances with a reasonable judge.

Answer 8

Maybe if you have that much faith in our Justice system. It's 12 people in a jury trail and none of them are perfect. They just make their decision based on the evidence provided. Sometimes they make the wrong decision, sometimes they aren't given enough evidence to help them make the right decision.
I know I would NOT want my life in the hands of 12 people that I dont know.

Answer 9

Trial by jury has become something of a sacred cow in recent years. I fully accept trial by jury in the majority of cases. However, when it comes to a fraud trial, I defy anyone who is not themselves either a fraudster or bent banker to understand even the most rudimentary argument put by both prosecution and defence lawyers.

Answer 10

You mention 'truth'! My experience on jury service gives me the impression that that word doesn't enter the equation at all,
whether it is from the defendant, the accuser, council for the defence or the prosecutor. I suppose there is a kind of justice, but for most of the time it is simply a farce in the most ridiculous of sit-coms.