what are the key influences of jury on the legal system and society?

Question

how does the jury influence the legal system and by how much?

Answer 1

I love the cynical responses and they have a large measure of truth in them but I suggest juries can influence the legal system and have done so, and most certainly influence society.
Yes, a jury is often symbolic representing that wonderful principle of being tried by our peers, initially made up of '12 good 'men' and true'. But over the years because of the difficulties of getting all 12 to agree we have seen the introduction of majority verdicts.
In practice lots of cases are resolved, or carved up if you want to put it that way, without ever seeing a jury, only the most serious eg. rapes, murder, and more recently terrorism cases are heard by a jury.
Consider to what extent plea bargaining and the unpredictabilty of the jury has been an influence. Amongst the unpredictable nature juries do sometime defy the odds and really create confusiuon in the executive, consider most recently when they found some anti war protesters not guilty of criminal damage when they wrecked some military aircraft, their defence being neccesity to prevent the planes being used in war crimes, when Ponting was found not guilty of leaking official secrets relating to the Falklands war.
Consider to what extent the supossed inability of juries to understand complex frauds, or to withstand intimidation as in Northern Ireland , has led to trials in the absence of a jury and increasing calls for a panel of judges to replace juries.
Jury trials are expensive and time consuming. No doubt some hard nosed people in the whole leagl process, judges, govt., lawyers, etc. privately think they are a hindrance to getting offenders dealt with but few dare to say so publicly.
Final thought, to reassure society that everything is safe and that crime is being controlled the executive wants or needs a high conviction rate. Could the citizens sleep safe at night if 'criminals' ( alleged ) kept being found 'not guilty' therefore the jury and any of us likely to be asked to serve on it must be vigilent to listen only to the evidence, and even before that be prepared to resist the prejudices, and watering down of the due process ( fairness) procedures which Parliament increasingly seems to be doing.

Answer 2

... influences OF jury ON legal system - NONE.

The legal system changed fundamentally when right of trial by Jury was introduced - it is being watered down all the time now.

But the presence of a jury system does not continue to add change to the legal system.

Answer 3

Historical background:
The influences of the jury in the English legal system can usefully be seen through its origin. When the jury trial emerged in England in the medieval period it was largely to replace other, less advantageous modes of proof, many of which relied on religious elements. Examples are trial by battle, when the claimant and the defendant would fight and God would be expected to guide the hand of the person with the best right, thus ensuring that the winner was indeed the deserving person. Other modes were trial by water or fire; in the former a person would be lowered into a lake and if he sank, the water through God was seen as having accepted him and he was innocent. In trial by fire, burning hot iron would be placed in the accused's hand whilst a prayer was said, and if the wound healed it was seen as God's blessing.

Thus jury trial first emerged out of necessity and was used both in criminal and in civil trials. It was later removed from civil trials, and today only remains in criminal trials.


A modern jury verdict:
- A modern jury verdict must be by a majority of 10 where you have 11 or more jurors, 8 where you have 9 or more etc.
- The jury will only be expected to answer questions of fact, leaving questions of law for the judge, and an acquittal by a jury is generally seen as conclusive, though note the new system of appealing an acquittal in the Criminal Justice Act 2003.


Advantages:
- Trial by ones peers. Supposed to be a relatively well mixed group of people removing the possibility of bias from the judgment.
- The longevity of the institution. Seen as a vital part of a legal system, and has since Magna Carta in 1215 been viewed as a pillar of English law.
- Protect against corruption, personal opinion etc


Problems:
- The secrecy of the jury deliberations was in theory meant to protect the jury. Today however, many will argue that it may prejudice the defendant without it being possible to use it as grounds for appeal. An example would be the case where after trial, the defendant's lawyer is informed of the fact that during jury deliberations one of the jurors claimed to know the defendant and had given the other jurors a list of fictitious previous offences. This will clearly prejudice the defendant, but cannot constitute grounds for appeal. (Although note the influence of the European Convention of Human Rights)
- Decisions. Connected with the above point is the problem in that one simply cannot know how they arrive at their decisions, and there was a famous case where the jury had been using a ouija-board to contact the dead victim, as they could not decide whether the defendant had actually killed him or not. (note that an appealed was allowed in that case)
- Rape trials. Recent evidence has shown that juries are increasingly likely to acquit on rape charges, often connected with a notion that the victim was to some extent responsible for it.
- Jury directions. At the end of every trial, the trial judge is expected to give the jury directions as to what law they should apply to the facts they find. There are a number of problems with these; Firstly they are often unduly complicated, asking the juries to draw impossible assumptions, invisible distinctions, or disregard evidence that is clearly relevant because of procedural errors. Secondly, research has shown that rather than protecting the defendant in rape cases, juries were in fact more likely to convict after hearing a long directions on what not to include as it focused their attention on the evidence. Thirdly, there are a number of cases where the trial judge has been held to give a bad or insufficient direction. If a direction is too complicated for even a judge to apply, then it is fair to assume that a jury may struggle.


Conclusion:
There are thus a number of arguments against jury trials, and the most ardent critics tend to focus on the unreliability of the jury as a fact finding body, the alleged inherent uncertainty of a jury verdict due to the secrecy surrounding it, and a preference for judges as legal professionals to make decisions.

Please note that I have only listed a few of the most commonly cited advantages and disadvantages listed above, and have omitted case names to support them.

Answer 4

The idea of a jury system is that a person is judged by his peers -- by society as a whole rather than one individual who has been appointed to the judiciary. It used to be possible for the defence to challenge sufficient members of the panel to arrange a jury which looked satisfactory from the point of view of the client -- in other words, people they thought would be more likely to acquit their client, especially in the event of an appeal to the emotions. Juries are judges of fact and can be swayed in a way that hard headed judges can not.

Answer 5

I think the legal system influences the jury. Jurors are picked at random and ordered to appear. Most find a way to get out of it. So we do not get a cross section of citizens in the jury pool. Jurors are told where to sit, what to do, what they can hear, what they can consider, what are their options. In criminal cases, they are pretty much limited to guilty or innocent verdicts. In civil cases, they have to find for the plaintiff or for the defendant. Each jury is different, so a pattern of decisions does not emerge.

Answer 6

It is my opinion and only mine,that the jury is a puppet of the court to be manipulated and cajoled into making the decision demanded by politicians through both judges and court jesters.Only to make the weak feel powerful and the feeble feel strong and that truth stands for little unless there be a man or woman with conviction,prepared to stand for truth.
The public think that the decision is theirs but,only on the judges summing up and the politicians advice determine ones fate.......now and then the jury don't behave as should and piss the jesters off.Thank God for small mercies

Answer 7

When real people decide the facts in court cases, that limits the ability of the government (originally, the king) to dictate results. It is a check on the power of the government.

Answer 8

I would argue that is based mainly on the Roman legal traditions.