The Jury System and Justice

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 trial’s 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 the determination of issues of law including, but not limited to, the appropriate sentence. Juries, on the other hand, could be better audiences on issues of fact than judges. In any jury trial, according to Melsheimer and Smith (2017, p. 181), “the jury is the trier of fact.” They are likely to be more attentive to the ‘story’ and make determinations on the basis of how rational the unfolding drama appears to be. This accords the defense an opportunity to present the ‘the whole picture’ for determination. Indeed, as Frank (1973, p. 136) observe, in comparison to a Bench Trial, “the jury is assumed to be…, more responsive to unique extenuating circumstances.” As the author further points out, trials by jury allow for the separation of fact from law, effectively ensuring that there is no confusion as to the basis of a specific decision.

Next, trial by a jury is by far the most effective way for the American justice system to not only incorporate and take into consideration the voices of the people, but to also ensure that it reflects the unique standards and circumstances of the entire community. In this case, the defendant is presented with an opportunity to appeal to his peers to assess his innocence or guilt based on the presentation of facts he or she makes. Essentially, the guilty or not guilty determination on this front is more likely than not to be made on the basis of community expectations as well as standards (but while at the same time taking into consideration the legal guidelines put in place). In Sioux City R.R. vs. Stout (1873), the Supreme Court of the United States, according to Shea (1929, p. 545) noted that:

Twelve men of the average of the community, men of education and men of little education, men of learning and men whose learning consists only in what they themselves have seen and heard-the merchant, the mechanic, the farmer, the laborer-these men sit together, consult and apply their separate experience in the affairs of life to the facts proven and draw a conclusion. This average judgment thus given out is the great effort of the law to obtain. It is to be assumed that twelve men know more of the common affairs of life than does one man; that they can draw wiser and safer conclusions than can a single judge.

Towards this end, therefore, it could be said that jurors are representatives of both the perspectives of the common citizen and further enhance the relevance of reason and commonsense. Further, they satisfy the existing need for public participation in justice administration, as a trial by jury is manifestly a public one. It would therefore be reasonable to conclude that trial by jury effectively safeguards the purity of judicial proceedings – and towards that end the jury system remains to be a very effective way of ensuring justice. As a matter of fact, as Dwyer (2014) points out, any attempt to undermine the role of the jury would amount to denying the people a basic right.

In seeking to present a balanced argument, it would be prudent to take into consideration some of the augments advanced against trial by jury. To begin with, it should be noted that in criminal trials that are particularly emotive, a conviction could occur as a consequence of the emotionally charged nature of the case. Examples of emotionally charged cases include gruesome murders, crimes against defenseless persons such as young children, cases with a racial aspect where stereotypes could creep in, etc. Members of the jury may not necessarily possess the professional training on how to separate personal feelings from facts (Frank 1973). Further, in such cases, decisions could be influenced by ‘group think’ mentality. It could be argued that essentially, the judge is specifically trained to delink his or her personal feelings from the case and only rely on the evidence appertaining to the said case. This point of view does not, however, necessarily present bench trials as being a better alternative to trials by jury. As a matter of fact, it should be noted that there is no shortage of instances whereby some judges have been rightfully branded incompetent (and perhaps corrupt) in bench trials. As it has been pointed out elsewhere in this text, the jury could be deemed as an escape from the possibility of incompetence or unethical practices on the part of a single judge.

Next, it could be said that trial by jury is often inappropriate in some kinds of cases, i.e. complex cases such as those involving civil litigation. In essence, like everything else in the society, the nature and conduct of crime continues to evolve with modernity. According to Jonakait (2006), while the jury has evolved in various ways over the last 100 years, especially with regard to selection and composition, nothing has significantly changed with regard to the fact-finding methods in application. For this reason, the ability of a jury to make factual determinations on complex crimes is put to question. For instance, it should be noted that today, unlike was the case a few decades ago, white collar crime has become much more complex. A good example in this case would be where an equities or forex trader is accused of a myriad of prohibited practices such as front running. The fact that such a case would involve complex and elaborate financial dealings and transactions could be used to pose serious questions as to whether trial by jury would be an effective way of ensuring justice. It should, however, be noted that this is a concern that could be put to rest or addressed by the utilization of special juries. Here, persons would be considered for membership to the jury on the basis of their ability to grasp the specific aspects of the issues of fact under consideration in a specific case. Other measures which could be taken to enhance the understanding of the issues under consideration, apart from constituting a special jury, would 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