Strengths and Weaknesses of the Jury:
One strength of the jury is that they can be considered an independent 'fact finding body'. Consisting of 12 or 6 ordinary men and women, the role of the jury is to determine whether the burden has been met by the prosecutor or plaintiff. Here, jury members are not bound by the rules of precedent and can apply their own common sense and beliefs towards the outcome of the case. Given that they are randomly chosen from the community, juries also don't bring towards the trial any political pressures and can be impartial regarding the case before them.
However, a weakness of this is that as individuals, the jury can also harbor their own sense of bias towards the case. As jury members are not required to given reasons behind their decision, a jury's bias or prejudice may never come to light. This can impact the outcome of a case as the jury is not upholding their role as being an impartial function of the legal system.
Another strength of the jury is that it spreads the decision making process. The more people involved in the decision making process can have an effect of counterbalancing any prejudice or bias held by one person. This removes the responsibility of determining the outcome of a case, in most criminal cases, from the judge alone and can ensure that ordinary people from the community are involved. The decision reached by the jury therefore will be more likely to be accepted as it appears to come from the community.
On the other hand, as jurors are regularly men and women from the community it may be unreasonable to expect them to process the volume of evidence presented and apply, what can sometimes be, complex matters of law. Here, due to some language barriers, some jury members may not understand the information that is presented to them in order to make a decision. This lack of understanding or error can lead to outcomes that are incorrect or unjust.
In saying that, the presence of a jury assists to democratise the courts. As judges are not elected and tend to come from a narrow socio economic group, their decisions and values may not necessary underpin those that are held by the community. By involving members of the community within the jury system, this democratises the court system through allowing the values and beliefs held by the wider community to be injected into the outcomes at trial. This also ensures that a cross section of the community is involved in making a fairer decision.
However, a factor that cannot be ignored is the juries increase the cost and length of the trial. Juries are paid by the state in criminal cases and costs are worn by the plaintiff in civil matters which adds to the costs of funding trials. Furthermore, jury deliberations can extend the case unnecessarily as result of bias and or a member wanting to prolong the trial for their own personal reasons. This may result in justice being delayed for parties involved, especially those held in remand until their guilt can be determined.
Lastly, another advantage of the jury is that it provides the courts with a level of public scrutiny and assists to educate the community on the legal process. As members of the public are involved in the outcome of the case, judges, barristers and parties must ensure that they are performing their duties to the highest standards. This also safeguards the rights of individuals from being abused. Furthermore, as the community is involved, members of the jury are educated and gain knowledge about he workings of our legal system which is an important aspect.
A disadvantage of the jury however, this that they can easily be won over by 'media hype' or the presentation skills of a confident barrister. Rather than processing evidence and determine facts before them as they are required to do, some jurors may let their emotions become involved due to the over exposure of the media reporting on the case. They may also be 'won over' by a charismatic and skilful barrister as oppose to determining whether they have been thoroughly convinced by the facts of the case.
One strength of the jury is that they can be considered an independent 'fact finding body'. Consisting of 12 or 6 ordinary men and women, the role of the jury is to determine whether the burden has been met by the prosecutor or plaintiff. Here, jury members are not bound by the rules of precedent and can apply their own common sense and beliefs towards the outcome of the case. Given that they are randomly chosen from the community, juries also don't bring towards the trial any political pressures and can be impartial regarding the case before them.
However, a weakness of this is that as individuals, the jury can also harbor their own sense of bias towards the case. As jury members are not required to given reasons behind their decision, a jury's bias or prejudice may never come to light. This can impact the outcome of a case as the jury is not upholding their role as being an impartial function of the legal system.
Another strength of the jury is that it spreads the decision making process. The more people involved in the decision making process can have an effect of counterbalancing any prejudice or bias held by one person. This removes the responsibility of determining the outcome of a case, in most criminal cases, from the judge alone and can ensure that ordinary people from the community are involved. The decision reached by the jury therefore will be more likely to be accepted as it appears to come from the community.
On the other hand, as jurors are regularly men and women from the community it may be unreasonable to expect them to process the volume of evidence presented and apply, what can sometimes be, complex matters of law. Here, due to some language barriers, some jury members may not understand the information that is presented to them in order to make a decision. This lack of understanding or error can lead to outcomes that are incorrect or unjust.
In saying that, the presence of a jury assists to democratise the courts. As judges are not elected and tend to come from a narrow socio economic group, their decisions and values may not necessary underpin those that are held by the community. By involving members of the community within the jury system, this democratises the court system through allowing the values and beliefs held by the wider community to be injected into the outcomes at trial. This also ensures that a cross section of the community is involved in making a fairer decision.
However, a factor that cannot be ignored is the juries increase the cost and length of the trial. Juries are paid by the state in criminal cases and costs are worn by the plaintiff in civil matters which adds to the costs of funding trials. Furthermore, jury deliberations can extend the case unnecessarily as result of bias and or a member wanting to prolong the trial for their own personal reasons. This may result in justice being delayed for parties involved, especially those held in remand until their guilt can be determined.
Lastly, another advantage of the jury is that it provides the courts with a level of public scrutiny and assists to educate the community on the legal process. As members of the public are involved in the outcome of the case, judges, barristers and parties must ensure that they are performing their duties to the highest standards. This also safeguards the rights of individuals from being abused. Furthermore, as the community is involved, members of the jury are educated and gain knowledge about he workings of our legal system which is an important aspect.
A disadvantage of the jury however, this that they can easily be won over by 'media hype' or the presentation skills of a confident barrister. Rather than processing evidence and determine facts before them as they are required to do, some jurors may let their emotions become involved due to the over exposure of the media reporting on the case. They may also be 'won over' by a charismatic and skilful barrister as oppose to determining whether they have been thoroughly convinced by the facts of the case.