When I initially began blogging about the use of trial juries I was really looking for reasons why juries can't be trusted with such decisions. I did find plenty but most of them weren't back up by research and for the ones that were, that research was outdated. And then I stumbled across a statistic that marked a turning point in my thinking: During a research study conducted by Kalven and Keisel, in only 22% of cases studied would the presiding judge have decided a differing verdict based on the evidence.
Right about then was when I realized that my real problem was rather or not I trusted what I'm sure a portion of that statistic rested upon - the power of the jury to nullify or judge the law or how it was applied as well as the evidence presented in a case. This thought guided my analysis post in which I explored the history and application of the jury veto in the justice system.
Perhaps because I only truly narrowed down on a real topic for the past post, I still feel undecided on whether or not it is truly best for juries, rather than individuals educated on the law, to reach verdicts in criminal or civil cases. I found many instances in which juries appeared to rule for reasons which I'd disapprove - such as on instinct in the Robin Hood Hills case, or out of distrust of a racist cop as in the OJ Simpson trial. But the idea of an ultimate veto power over any legislation by government within the jury room is very alluring.
Many problems, supported by research, remain in the system. For many reasons, mostly relatively innocent ones, juries continue to lack true diversity in their numbers. Jury decisions tend to be reached through deliberations conducted mostly by the few rather than by equal contribution from every member. And jury instructions seem to be insufficient to really help jurors understand the law in every case. If the jury system to be saved, it certainly needs some more reform - such as updating voter registration lists more often than every four years, financial assistance in exchange for jury duty for those jurors that might otherwise apply to be excused, more detailed and comprehensive jury instructions that at least attempt to refute common misconceptions, and more than a passing consideration for using special verdicts at least in all criminal cases rather than a simple "guilty or not guilty." Requiring an explanation for the verdict is the only way to ensure that jurors take responsibility for their decision.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Your thought progression is really interesting in you final self-analysis post. What does this say about American values though, that a group of average citizens can overturn a qualified judge? It is interesting when you really think about the impact we as American citizens have in our country's justice system. Typically, people complain about having to attend jury duty, but this "chore" should really be considered an honor. It should be an honor because it represents the fairness our country is attempting to pursue. While it may not always be fair, at least the goal of our country is to be fair.
I knew about the veto process with juries, but I didn't realize that that could veto everyone. That's alarming to an extent. At the same time it makes a lot of sense. If you give people the right to pass judgement, then they should ultimately have the right to pass it above anything else logically. I think the veto power is meant as a check on the judge's power, a way to ensure that judges don't take the law into their own hands. On the other hand our system is letting your "average" citizen take the law into theirs.
Even though I don't really think that the veto idea is a good one, I really don't think qualified judges necessarily deserve full power either. Graduating law school doesn't mean you are qualified in the law field. It just means you can passed the LSATS and the Bar. Who should have more power in a court? Who knows..
I think that your self-analysis is great, but could use some work structurally. Explain how you can make the use of trial juries comprehensible, state what you
learned, what you discovered, what you brushed on, and where you got confused. Other than that great job!
Post a Comment