Pros and Cons of Trial by Jury

Categories: Crime

Essay, Pages 3 (646 words)

Views

861

A jury trial (or trial by jury) is a legal action in which a jury either makes a decision or makes findings of fact which are then applied by a judge. It is distinguished from a bench trial, in which a judge or panel of judges make all choices. Jury trials are utilized in a substantial share of serious criminal cases in practically all typical law legal systems, [1] and juries or lay judges have been included into the legal systems of many civil law countries for criminal cases.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get your custom essay on

“ Pros and Cons of Trial by Jury ”

Get custom paper

NEW! smart matching with writer

Just the United States and Canada make routine use of jury trials in a wide range of non-criminal cases. Other typical law legal jurisdictions use jury trials just in an extremely choose class of cases. a jury is a collection of twelve arbitrarily chosen individuals between the ages of 18 and 65 from the electoral roll. They are all signed up voters and are resident people of the country. In many common law jurisdictions, the jury is responsible for discovering the realities of the case, while the judge determines the law.

These "peers of the implicated" are accountable for listening to a disagreement, assessing the proof provided, choosing on the truths, and deciding in accordance with the guidelines of law and their jury guidelines. Generally, the jury only judges guilt or a decision of not guilty, however the real penalty is set by the judge. An interesting development was introduced in Russia in the judicial reform of Alexander II: unlike in contemporary jury trials, jurors chose not just whether the defendant was guilty or not guilty, however they had the 3rd option: "Guilty, however not to be penalized", because Alexander II believed that justice without morality is wrong.

In countries where jury trials are typical, juries are frequently viewed as an important check against state power. Other common assertions about the advantages of trial by jury is that it provides a way of interjecting community norms and worths into judicial procedures which it legitimizes the law by supplying chances for citizens to confirm criminal statutes in their application to particular trials. jury trials educate residents about self-government.

Many also believe that a jury is likely to provide a more sympathetic hearing, or a fairer one, to a party who is not part of the government – or other establishment interest – than would representatives of the state. This last point may be disputed. For example, in highly emotional cases, such as child rape, the jury may be tempted to convict based on personal feelings rather than on conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Another issue with jury trials is the potential for jurors to be swayed by prejudice, including racial considerations. An infamous case was the 1992 trial in the Rodney King case in California, in which white police officers were acquitted of excessive force in the violent beating of a black man by a jury consisting mostly of whites without any black jurors.

Jury trials in multi-cultural countries with a history of ethnic tensions may be problematic, and lead to juries being unduly biased and partial. This is one of the reasons why both India and Pakistan abolished jury trials soon after independence. The positive belief about jury trials in the UK and the US contrasts with popular belief in many other nations, in which it is considered bizarre and risky for a person's fate to be put into the hands of untrained laymen. Could freely choose whether to have a jury or trial by judges, The fact that juries do not often have to give a reason for their verdict is also criticized, since opponents argue it is unfair for a person to be deprived of life, liberty or property without being told why it is being done so.