Role Of The Jury: Role Of The Jury

Role Of The Jury

In most cases Jurors are predominantly used in criminal trials and only in major civil cases. They have the responsibility of deciding the accused guilt based on the facts presented in the court. Not all criminal cases have jurors you can chose a judge trial but usually people believe the jury will be more sympathetic than the judge so more often than not it’s a jury trial.

Advantages of having a Jury

When twelve people sit and watch the same trial with the same information the way different people perceive it makes a difference of opinions which is back by past experiences. The discussion that is taken place after the trail is taken very seriously and the opinions from a variety of people that makes up the jury makes for many different perspectives. This causes the jury to annalyse the case and all the points that were raised these discussions last for hours until in most cases a unanimous decious has occurred on the verdict

of the accused.

The jury system has worked like this with 800 years of success and has gain a large public acceptance. As there is twelve jurors if there is any biases it will be cancelled out with the majority. Jurors are meant to represent the public more than the judges sometimes do. Judges are often thought as older, white and upper class members of the public while the jury offers a bigger spectrum of people with a variety of cultures and different working classes. With the lindy chamberlain case the jury allowed for different perspectives so that hopefully they wouldn’t all listen to the media point of view. Ultimately having a jury in the chamberlain

Disadvantages of having a jury
The selection of juries is somewhat random.

A number of people are selected from the voting ballot and their suitability is checked. This takes in past convictions, possible biases and if there is some kind of relationship between the accused and themselfs. Even though they are checked uneducated people or people with strong point of views can and have been selected for service as they make up a part of the general public. Juries can also be exposed to the media's point of view which isn’t always accurate as there can be added drama for entertainment purposes. They are made aware of not listening to other perspectives only the facts presented in court but it is hard to ignore information relating to the case your assigned. This is relevant to the Lindy Chamberlain case where the trail was covered by the media massively. The people in the case couldn’t not take in the information out of court as everyone was talking about it. This gave a massive disadvantage to lindy in the trial which contributed to her being

convicted.

My Opinion
Although it didn’t work well in the Chamberlain trial I believe the jury system has evolved well to suit the needs of the public. It allows the general public a role in our justice system which is meant to serve the public. In most cases it works well and people are hesitant to send someone to jail so they understand the rule about beyond reasonable doubt. Since the Chamberlain trial people have been exposed to how much of an effect the media has so more information has been disclosed. They definitely don’t live broadcast the trial for the whole country to see turning it into a soap opera. With everything considered the jury system’s advantages far outweigh the disadvantages so people should still have the option for one, if they are opposed of the jury system they can always elect to have a judge trial.