The Jury System as the Best Path to Justice in America

Overview: Jury Trials Versus Bench Trials

In jury trials, the key focus is usually on factual findings based on the evidence presented by the trial's parties. Towards this end, the jury not only hears the dispute but also assesses the presented evidence in order to reach a decision founded on facts and guided by jury instructions and the legal parameters in place (Jonakait, 2006). It is important to note that in general, the jury is only responsible for determining guilt, whereas setting the actual penalty is a preserve of the judge. In that regard, the judge addresses the legal aspects of the case while the jury concerns itself with the facts.

Bench trials, by contrast, do not include a jury and take place entirely before a judge, who is therefore responsible for both the legal and factual aspects of the case. The question that arises is: which of the two approaches better ensures justice? The position of this paper is that the jury system is the only way to ensure justice.

The Case for Trial by Jury

According to Dwyer (2014), there have been calls from various quarters for the abolishment of the jury. Various arguments have been presented in an attempt to bolster the position against trial by jury and 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 outset that, by virtue of being a fundamental right, the right to trial by jury must be waived by any defendant who prefers a bench trial. 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 into a bench trial unless they revoke their right to a jury trial. However, even then, as Jonakait (2006) notes, a bench trial is not always guaranteed even at the request of the accused, since "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).

First, the fact that more people are involved in determining the fate of the defendant in a jury trial significantly enhances the chances of justice being served. In a bench trial, the sole decision-maker regarding guilt or innocence is a single individual — the judge. Human beings suffer various inherent weaknesses that affect their perception of issues before them, including bias, emotion, and anger. When a single person bears sole responsibility for a guilty or not-guilty verdict, these weaknesses could obstruct a just outcome. In a jury trial, it is highly unlikely that twelve persons would share the same biases and arrive at a faulty conclusion resulting in a miscarriage of justice. In the words of Frank (1973, p. 135), in 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 is far easier to influence one person than twelve. In that regard, the jury system appears to be a very effective means of ensuring justice.

Second, trial by jury means that the two issues central to a guilty or not-guilty decision — questions of law and questions of fact — are examined by different parties. In a bench trial, the judge functions as a referee playing multiple roles: determinant of legal matters and finder of fact. It is preferable for these roles to be performed by different persons. Thanks to their legal training, judges are better equipped to determine issues of law, including the appropriate sentence. Juries, on the other hand, may be better audiences on issues of fact. According to Melsheimer and Smith (2017, p. 181), "the jury is the trier of fact." Jurors are likely to be more attentive to the narrative of events and to make determinations based on how rational that narrative appears, affording the defense an opportunity to present the full picture. As Frank (1973, p. 136) observes, compared to a bench trial, "the jury is assumed to be…more responsive to unique extenuating circumstances." Trial by jury thus allows for a clean separation of fact from law, ensuring clarity about the basis of any specific decision.

Community Representation and Democratic Legitimacy

Trial by jury is by far the most effective way for the American justice system to incorporate the voices of the people and to ensure that it reflects the standards and circumstances of the broader community. The defendant is given an opportunity to appeal to peers who assess guilt or innocence on the basis of the presented facts. The determination is therefore more likely to be made in accordance with community expectations and standards, while still respecting the applicable legal guidelines. In Sioux City R.R. v. Stout (1873), the Supreme Court of the United States, as cited by Shea (1929, p. 545), observed:

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.

Jurors are thus representatives of the perspective of the common citizen, and they bring reason and commonsense to bear on questions of fact. They also satisfy the need for public participation in the administration of justice, since trial by jury is manifestly a public proceeding. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that trial by jury effectively safeguards the integrity of judicial proceedings. As Dwyer (2014) points out, any attempt to undermine the role of the jury would amount to denying the people a basic right.

Conclusion

In the final analysis, the arguments presented in this paper support the conclusion that the jury system is the most effective mechanism for ensuring justice. It may, in fact, be the most important component of the justice system. One of the central themes that emerges from this discussion is the prominent role jury trial plays in preventing tyranny within the American justice system. The right to be tried by a jury of one's peers is a constitutional right, and this system — applied for many years — appears superior to bench trial.

On the basis of their training, judges are best suited to determine matters of law. Jurors, on the other hand, drawing on their intimate knowledge of the communities from which they come and their understanding of the common affairs of everyday life, are best suited to determine matters of fact. This division of roles should remain distinct in order to ensure that justice is not only served, but also seen to be served.

References

Dwyer, W. (2014). In the hands of the people: The trial jury's origins, triumphs, troubles, and future in American democracy. Thomas Dunne Books.

Frank, J. (1973). Courts on trial: Myth and reality in American justice. Princeton University Press.

Jonakait, R. N. (2006). The American jury system. Yale University Press.

McLynn, F. (2016). Famous trials: Cases that made history. Crux Publishing Ltd.

Melsheimer, T., & Smith, C. (2017). On the jury trial: Principles and practices for effective advocacy. University of North Texas Press.

Shea, J. (1929). Defense of the jury system. The Notre Dame Law Review, 4(2), 543–547.

Starr, V. H., & McCormick, M. (2009). Jury selection (4th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.