why don't we switch over to Jury systems to deliver real justice?

Answer 1

Members who sit in jury are ordinary people from all walk of life who may or may not be having knowledge of law & legal system, in criminal justice the basic requirement is of the evidence brought on the record & circumstances leading to the offence by the accused, which lawyers & judges with proper legal knowledge & experience can apply to the particular case. What a novice sitting in the jury will not be able to construe these in a case as legal experts do & will be going by the sentiments which usually news media is exploiting nowadays. We in the legal system have to follow a particular partner to study & construe any case to reach a judicious result which an ordinary citizen will not be able to do. I doubt very much if jury system which was once followed in the Indian judicial system but now forgone will be of any help in proper judicial results rather it can confuse the whole judicial system with superficial considerations.

Answer 2

That would be far worse. Jury is selected from the public with no knowledge of the law, easier to corrupt and easily swayed by public opinion which is not always correct, not to mention caste factor etc. Judges are trained to appreciate evidence and decide on the basis of case law and established principles of jurisprudence. Most judges are okay. Believe me, compared to most other countries we have an excellent justice system.. It is only delays that have to be sorted out on a war footing.

Answer 3

I think the jury system is the best way to tackle many of the infirmities in our judicial system.

In fact we had been deliberating through juries until our independence. Thereafter the system was abolished firstly due to lack of literates in our country and due to excessive expenditure.

This system works good only in developed countries because they have a good infrastruture. There for every 50 to 100 people they have a judge to preside over their disputes. For every 500 they have a court. Above all they have plenty of time and resources both monetary as well as expertise to tackle and handle the cases.

In our country we dont have a judge even for a lakh. We dont have a court even for a lakh or ten lakhs. Existing courts are already burdened with the pending cases. One criminal case takes atleast 1 to 2 years. with the given length obviously we cannot bind the jury for the whole episode. Apart from lack of time and infrastructure we dont have money to spend on the jury. We dont have money to spend on judges and the system working for the courts. We really cant afford to switch over to jury system. Atleast for now.

In U.S. and other developed countries a case, be it criminal or civil, takes not more than 6 months. Criminal cases are much more fast in disposal.

In our country now it is much better. Criminal cases pertaining to grave offences such as murder, rape, dacoity and etc. are disposed within one year of the completion of the investigation or even sooner. Even Civil litigation is being disposed off fast. Earlier it used to take atleast 10 to 20 years at the initial stage and thereafter appeals.

No doubt we have enough literates but we dont have money.

And there are advantages of having jury system also. What if the members of the jury are not acquainted with the law. They are briefed about the entire case and the law pertaining to the case by the judge as well as the para legals. And by this we create awareness among the citizens as to what law is. How many of us know the law. It is very important for us to know the law and our rights embodied thereunder.

Its like having a wholly cooked delicious meal before us and we dont know what to do with it.

This system will surely empower the general citizens and embolden them to seek their legitimate rights.

And as for their capability. There are umpteen number of precedents where inspite of the Judges disapproval/dissent, the jury's verdict was upheld by the Privy Council.

Answer 4

What would be your definition of a Jury System? We already deliberate by jury. Do you mean the jury should decide the punishment? That wouldn't work well since jurors aren't' qualified to hand down sentencing.

Answer 5

It was in vogue earlier but had to be discarded mainly because of the fact that eminent persons were NOT interested to be jurists because, among others, the system was, at least to some extent, corrupted. There was also no foolproof Manual with regard to appointment of Jurists. Ordinary people with 'ordinary or common' prudence, were not considered to be able enough to be a jurist. Now a days, with corruptions eating our entire system and the academic culture is going downwards day by day because of dirty Politics, the judiciary with jurists would not work for the benefit of common people.

Answer 6

I think thiru is right. A very perceptive answer. Enlightening too.

Answer 7

In regards to what type of situations?.

Answer 8

time taken more%literacy low