Jury Advantages Disadvantages And Reforms Essay

In 1956 Lord Devlin professed that juries atomic number 18 the lamp that shows that freedom lives. Evaluate the accuracy of this bid with regard to the emoluments and detriments of ladder by board, the alternatives available and each reforms that suck up been introduced or recommended. You atomic number 18 to produce an essay as followscritically quantify pros and cons the arguments for and against rill by board Discuss any reforms that micturate been proposed or introduced and approximate these reforms pros and consThis essay will evaluate the argument for and against the control board governing body, deal and evaluate proposed or recent reforms to the instrument bloodshed administration of rules in England and Wales. Finally, it will consider the alternatives to the flowing control board system. For over superstar k years the instrument beautify system has been in place in the legal system, which to whatsoever tail end seem bizarre to study twelves random throng with no raising or experience in this field of operation to limit much or lessone elses assign . At first the use of the board was providing local knowledge and acting more than like witnesses kinda than the decisiveness makers that they argon seen as straightaway. They argon now single-handed assessors of deciding fact. One advantage of ladder by gore is public assurance. A board is considered by most as one of the fundamentals of a parliamentary nightclub and the right to be move by our peers has been supported by umpteen renowned settles. There be besides new qualifications for jury service enabling almost everyone a chance to mete out on a jury and creating a botch section of society.The use of a jury is very old and pipe down takes place in society today showing that it essential be a fair way to examine the accuse and that society must defy potency in the jury system. A nonher epoch- devising factor in the advantages of having a j ury is jury justice. The vast majority of mint who ar selected for jury service are non legal experts and have no previous flake knowledge, they do non have to follow previous cases or acts of parliament when deciding whether or non a person is guilty. A boost advantage of jury equity is not having to give a reason for the finding of fact that they have reached. This was put into place when Edward pertainl appealed against his intercession as a juryman and he won the right for the jury to be able to set to their own decision even if thejudge does not ensure (Bushells case 1670). Thirdly, the jury system is seen to be an open system of justice, import that a jury makes the legal system more open.This is because members of society are taking part in a decisive role which makes the bear on public. A plus result of having lay hatful in greet is that the law will be kept much clearer because the majority of things verbalize will have to be understandably pardoned to the jury and it also gives the defendant a chance to understand the case too. Conversely, the jury deliberate in private and do not have to give any reasons as to why they have come to their decision, insinuateing that the legal system is not to the full open, unlike adjudicate who have to explain their reasoning for a judgement they have made and if they make any mistakes it is accordingly known by new(prenominal)s and sens be appealed against. A final point of advantages of juries is fairity. A jury should always be impartial due to the way that they are selected. The process of the jury existence selected is random and should acquire a cross section of society where the people all have distinct backgrounds and views resulting in any biases being bay windowcel out. Having discussed the advantages of having a jury, it is classical to also discuss the limitations too.A disadvantage of a jury would be perverse decisions. Earlier in the essay when discussing the advanta ges of a jury, jury equity was spoke almost. However, this can also be seen as a disadvantage because to some it is unjustified and perverse. An showcase of this would be the case R v Randle and Pottle (1991). Where the defendants were charged with help a spy escape from prison house however this did not come about until it had been wrote about in a hand twenty five years later. The jury acquitted the defendants and it was thought that they did that because of the length of eon it had been since the offence and the time of the pursuance. Although secrecy can be seen as an advantage to safeguard jurors from stresses of others, it can be considered a disadvantage too. The reason for this is because all of the deliberating is completed privately in that respect is no way of anybody perspicacious if the jury did in fact amply understand the case. There is also no way of knowing if the jury have come to the verdict that they have chosen for all of the correct reasons.Bias is also another disadvantage although some people might think that a jury cannot be biased because in that location are twelve people however in that location can quiet be diagonal which can then affect the verdict. An example would be that some people are biasedtowards the police which is why people with specific criminal convictions are modify from sitting on a jury. some other example would be Sander v United Kingdom (2000) one juror had written a letter to the judge explaining that some of the other jurors had been making anti-Semite(a) remarks. The judge then asked the jury to count their consciences and the next day he real devil letter, one signed by all of the jurors stating that there had been no anti-Semite(a) remarks and the second letter from only one juror explaining that he had been the person making the racist jokes. notwithstanding all of the letters and the case was allowed to continue with the same jury. However, the European Court of Human Rights held th at under those mass the judge should have discharged the jury because there was a potential fortune of racial bias.Each of the advantages and disadvantages make an important contri howeverion to our understanding of our jury system and whether or not they are the outperform way to guess defendants but in spite of all of the disadvantages with the jury system it is still used today which suggests that they must be an advantage rather than a disadvantage. Despite the criticisms of having a jury the popularity of them remains mostly undiminished and the best process available. Nevertheless, there could be some other alternatives to having a jury. One would be foot race by a single judge, this method is chiefly used in civil court cases it is also known for being a fairer, more predictable result. Even so, there is not much public confidence in the use of a trial by single judge to decide serious criminal cases. This is because settle can become case hardened and prose liltion disposed(p).They are also known to be from very elite backgrounds and would not have much understanding of defendants and their backgrounds. Another survival would be a panel of adjudicate just like in other European countries where three to five judges sit on a panel together. It seems like a better whim having a panel of judges rather than a single judge as the different views would balance out but the fact still remains that they can be case hardened, prosecution minded and come from an elite background. Having a panel of judges would be very costly compared to a jury where they are not paid. In Scandinavian countries they have a system where a judge sits with two lay people. This does seem like it would be a good idea as the judge could provide legal expertness and the lay people offer a better view of society than the judge as it has already been established that judges are not a cross section of society, they are muchmore elite.There have been umpteen reforms and proposal s of reforms at heart the jury system. Some of the reforms are being drawn up to try and cut the costs of court cases as it could give up around thirty million pounds per year. Juries in minor theft cases, assaults, burglaries, some do drugs offences, criminal damage cases and some operate cases will be scrapped under the reforms, The propagation reported. It seems there is a privation for some reforms to be made on the current system for it to cope with new-fangled crimes by keeping justice updated.Overall, having trial by jury for a many amount of years suggests that it is successful and must be sensible to keep it. Granting there are other alternatives that have been recommended to the jury system there have not been any better options as of still to decide the fate of defendants. It seems likely that trial by jury is more of an advantage to the public than a disadvantage as explained earlier that the public would rather be tried by regular people rather than those of an elite background, so does this suggest that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? It seems that trial by jury will still continue for many years and will remain to be an asset to society.BibliographyMartin J. (2011) OCR Law for AS help EdFamous cases Bushels case in 1670 Brightside. 2015. Famous cases Bushels case in 1670 Brightside. ONLINE forthcoming at http//www.brightknowledge.org/knowledge-bank/law-and-politics/features-and-resources/independent-juries-bushel2019s-case-1670. Accessed 29 January 2015.Trial by jury faces axe in thousands of cases as courts try to cut costs day-to-day chain armor Online. 2015. Trial by jury faces axe in thousands of cases as courts try to cut costs Daily Mail Online. ONLINE Available at http//www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2087212/Trial-jury-faces-axe-thousands-cases-courts-try-cut-costs.htmlixzz3QFUAxgyj. Accessed 29 January 2015.