Sugested Reforms/Alternatives to the Jury System Flashcards
3 suggested reforms to trial by jury
Give reasons
Not proven
Specialist foreperson
Give reasons
If the jury were required to give a reason for its decision, the accused in a criminal trial would know why they had been found guilty and the parties in a civil case would know why the jury had decided the way it did. The parties would also know whether due attention had been given to points of law. This would be more satisfying for the parties but could lead to more appeals, especially if it was thought that the jury had not followed the law as explained by the judge.
Not proven
In Scotland, juries can give a decision of ‘not proven’. This means that if new evidence is brought out after the trial, the accused can be retried for the same offence. A problem with this could be that a jury may be tempted to take the ‘soft option’ of not proven, rather than thoroughly examining the evidence and reaching a final decision. This could be very costly because there could be more retrials.
Specialis foreperson
One of the problems of the jury system is that the jury is unfamiliar with the legal system and court procedure. It might be possible for the court to employ a specialist foreperson who could inform the jury on the relevant law and court procedure, which could assist them in reaching the right decision. It might be, however, that the opinion of a specialist foreperson could carry too much weight; that is, the jurors may take too much notice of what the foreperson feels would be the right decision, rather than basing their decision on their own intuitive feelings and understanding of the facts.
3 possible alternatives to trial by jury
Professional jurors
Specialist jurors
Trial by judge alone
Trial by judge alone
A judge would be able to make a decision based on the law with a thorough understanding of the law. A judge would also understand legal procedures and processes. The decision might therefore be more likely to be right. But a decision based on the law alone might not take into account the feelings and attitudes of ordinary people. A judge might also have formed biases against certain types of people or cases, which could colour his or her judgment.
Professional jurors
A professional jury employed by the state would have a better understanding of court procedure and legal processes. They could also develop expertise in certain kinds of cases.
They might, however, make decisions based on biases resulting from the many cases they had seen previously instead of seeing a case fresh for the first time. As employees of the state, they would lose the advantages of being an independent body.
Specialist jurors
A specialist jury could be a jury made up of, for example, medical experts in a case involving complicated medical evidence, or accountants in a case of fraud. One of the disadvantages of the jury system is that the jury may not understand complicated evidence put before it. A specialist jury would not have this problem. A specialist jury might, however, have biases against people in the same profession who had allegedly done something wrong.
