The Jury System is the Only Way to Ensure Justice

Overview

In jury trials, the key focus is usually on factual findings on the basis of the evidence laid bare by the trials parties. Towards this end, the jury not only lends its ear to the dispute, but also conducts an assessment of the presented evidence so as to come up with a decision founded on facts, and directed by the jury guidelines and legal parameters in place (Jonakait 2006). It is important to note that in general, the jury is only responsible for the guilt determination, whereas setting of the actual penalty is a preserve of the judge. In that regard, therefore, the judge looks at the legal aspects of the case, while the jury concerns itself with the facts. On the other hand, bench trials are not inclusive of a jury and they essentially take place before a judge who is therefore responsible not only the legal aspects of the case, but also the factual aspects of the same. The question that arises towards this end is; which of the two approaches ensures justice? The position of this text is that the jury system is the only way to ensure justice.

Discussion

According to Dwyer (2014), there have been calls from various quarters for the abolishment of the jury. Towards this end, there are various arguments that have been presented in various forums in an attempt to bolster the position against trial by jury, in favor of bench trial. This is regardless of the fact that the jury is as much an institution of self-governance as is the election of our officials (Dwyer 2014, p. 2). It should be noted, from the onset, that by virtue of being regarded a fundamental right, the right to trial by jury has to be waived by the defendant who is in favor of a bench trial. As a matter of fact, as Shea (1929, p. 544) points out, the right to trial by jury is a fundamental and integral part of a democracy as the right to suffrage or the freedom of worship, press and speech. Thus, no accused person can be forced to a bench trial unless they revoke their jury trial right. However, even then, as Jonakait (2006) notes, a bench trial is not always guaranteed even at the request of the accused. This is more so the case given that in about half of the states and the federal system, a bench trial occurs only if the prosecutor and the judge also consent (Jonakait 2006, p. 7).

To begin with, the fact that there are more people to determine the fate of the defendant in a jury trial further enhances the chances of justice being served. In a bench trial, the only person responsible for making a decision as to whether the defendant is guilty or not is the judge a single individual. It is important to note that human beings suffer various inherent weaknesses that affect their perception of issues before them. These weaknesses include, but they are not limited to, bias, emotions, and anger. When a single person is solely responsible for the declaration of a guilty or not guilty proclamation, these weaknesses could get in the way of rendering a just proclamation or judgment. In a jury trial, it is highly unlikely that 12 persons would suffer the same biases and come to a faulty conclusion leading to a travesty of justice. In the words of Frank (1973, p. 135), in scenarios or situations where it is suspected that trial judges are corrupt, or subject to dictation by political bosses, or where some judges are rigid bigots or otherwise incompetent, lawyers prefer to take their chances with juries. It would be easier to influence a single person, as opposed to a total of 12 persons. In that regard, therefore, the jury system appears to be a very effective way of ensuring justice.

Secondly, trial by jury effectively means that the two issues under consideration for a guilty or not guilty decision, i.e. questions of law and questions of fact, are looked into by different parties. In a bench trial, the judge could be seen as a referee who plays multiple roles that of a determinant of legal aspects and that of a fact finder. It would be better for these roles to be played by different persons for a variety of reasons. Thanks to their legal training, judges tend to be more adapted to...…be decreasing the technical and legal vocabulary, trying to define the meaning of specific legal terms, implementing steps to assist jurors such as allowing jurors to take notes and ask questions, and simplifying the jury instructions (Starr and McCormick 2009, p. 3-52).

As McLynn (2016) points out, there is currently no human system in place that could guarantee perfection in the American justice system. More specifically, the author is of the opinion that no system can make a promise of zero guilty acquittals and nil innocent convictions. It should, however, be noted that an assailant to any system in place ought to present compelling arguments as to why the said system is imperfect. Further, they ought to propose a better substitute for the system that they assail. The arguments presented by those opposed to trial by jury have so far not been convincing enough, as has been elucidated in this text. Further, they have not offered a better system that would replace the jury trial system. In that regard, therefore, until a better system can be proposed, and more valid imperfections of the current system pointed out, the jury trial system remains the only way to ensure justice in the American justice system

Conclusion

In the final analysis, based on the arguments put forth in this discussion, it appears that the jury system would be the only way to ensure justice. As a matter of fact, it could be the justice systems most important part. One of the themes that emerge in this discussion is the prominent role jury trial plays towards the elimination of tyranny in the American justice system. The right to be tried by jury is a constitutional right and towards that end, this particular system, which has been applied for many years, seems superior to bench trial. On the basis of his or her training, a judge would be best suited to determine matters of the law. On the other hand, on the strength of their intimate knowledge of the special circumstances of the communities in which they come from, their understanding of the common people and what governs their affairs, etc., jurors are best suited to determine matters of fact. This interrelationship ought to be mutually exclusive so s to ensure that…