Should Jury Trials Be Abolished in Modern Society?

Law and Public Policy

Photograph: John Lau

Since the 1215 Magna Carta Libertatum, the constitution has stated that one’s rights should only be impeded by “lawful judgement of equals”. Today, a jury consists of twelve persons, meant to represent a random (by the Juries Act 1974) cross-section of society, functioning to decide the guilt of a fellow member of society. A juror’s responsibility, therefore, is to independently determine guilt with the arguments and evidence presented by the defence and prosecution in a case. The jury is independent from the judge, and this was established in the case of R v Bushell's [1670] Vaugh 135 (CCCP).

In a criminal court, the charges are read out. The jury is then asked to state whether they know anyone who has been imprisoned, sentenced, on bail or probation. They must then meet the fundamental requirements of being able to read, write, speak and listen to English. After opening statements, questioning, cross-examinations, closing speeches and remarks, the jury deliberates. Subsequently, they are brought into a private room to discuss matters concerning the case. Once a decision is made, a spokesperson addresses the court and informs them of the decision: whether or not unanimous. However, there are many flaws with this system.

By definition, a jury is twelve people representing a random cross-section of society. In our increasingly diverse society, it is impossible to guarantee a fair judgement of peers. Juries are incredibly prone to prejudice and discrimination as shown in the case Saunders v UK where racist jokes were overheard among jurors prior to the verdict.

Another key concern is a fall in the jury’s independence concerning decision making. A Guardian article stated that “juries are deeply ingrained in our national DNA” and “the internet should not be allowed to undermine a system of justice dating back to Magna Carta”. In sum, the attorney general demands juries to fulfil their responsibilities independently, disregarding the reality of the matter. The internet is currently an ever-present part of our lives, an extension of our reality. Whether this be 24-hour news cycles, blogs, online newspapers - all are readily available at a button’s click. It is difficult to determine the influence all these have on juries, as they are not required to state reasons for their decisions in court. However, we must be aware of the lack of independence and find alternatives to such an impressionable and powerful group of twelve. Whether influence may be subconscious or not, it is unjust to completely neglect its potential life-ruining, career ending effects.

Another potential issue is that of logical reasoning. After deliberation, neither the spokesperson nor the jury is required to state a logical reason for their decision. Whether they were swayed one way by an “impressive” lawyer or simply went behind the law and ignored precedent based on pity, as happened in R v Randle and Pottle [1991] case, the judge cannot question the decision. In fact, the judge cannot even assure themselves that the jury can give a true verdict from the evidence in a court of law.

Over 800 years ago, when independence in deliberation was consciously easier and the UK was mostly mono-racial, a jury system may have been more objective (although one could argue that there is no such thing). However, nowadays, we live in a society filled with technology, limiting a jury’s independence in giving verdicts. We can no longer offer equal guarantees. So, can we, in good conscience, continue to assure our peers in society that a jury properly understands a case, including its complex issues, relevance of evidence and the judge’s remarks, and will try it without bias or influence of external factors? Only time will tell.