Evaluating Trial by Jury
A comparative article, by someone who has studied comparative law. You might not have seen some of these arguments on other platforms
Some countries have a jury system, while others do not. Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses. As a lawyer, who has studied comparative law, looking at different legal systems fascinates me. For someone in a particular legal system, they have not known anything else. Hence however they operate, feels normal and logical to them. I started my legal education by looking at five to six different legal systems. This makes it harder for me to accept something as a matter of fact. I am aware of the alternatives. In this article, I want to look into the jury system and if it still serves a purpose. We will mainly compare the United States with the Netherlands. The reason for this is, I am familiar with these legal systems.
I used to believe that the jury was unjust. This was because I was under the impression that it was the jury who actually made all the decisions. It was only after I read more about the American jury system that I learnt this is not the case. The jury does not decide on the law, only on the facts.1 Then based on the facts which are accepted they come to a decision. So, it is the judge who decides the laws and precedents to be applied. Having multiple people come together to decide on the facts of the case, means that the chances of corruption are lower. It is easier to bribe a judge or a bench of judges than an entire jury.
Emotional arguments
On the other hand, a jury can be easily persuaded by emotional appeal. From personal experience, when you are a part of the legal system for a longer time, you are less likely to be swayed by emotional stories. Stories often tend to distract you from facts. As someone who is just beginning their legal career, I tend to be captured by the emotional stories. My colleagues on the other hand, who have been working for longer, can see past those stories. They focus strictly on the legal elements. Every single case indeed involves humans, and therefore we do need to show leniency sometimes. Ideological words cannot directly be applied to people, we need emotional buffers. At the same time, if we hold onto emotions, the law becomes subjective. One of the main pillars of law is that there needs to be certain to it. You need to know what the outcome of a particular situation will be. So, it is not that there is no place for emotions in law. It is just that you need to be able to quantify the emotions and distil some replicable steps from them.
Need for speed
Another point is the jury system slows down the legal proceedings. In the Netherlands, only qualified lawyers can argue a case in some of the courts, you may not represent yourself unless you are a lawyer. A lawyer knows how the system works and therefore does not have to be educated on what the procedure is every single time. Their experience makes them more competent. When you involve a jury, most of them do not have a strong legal background. They must be instructed about the intricacies of the system and what information should be taken into consideration. Further, they also need more time to come to decisions. This takes more time than what is strictly necessary and increases the overall time required for a proceeding.
Diversity and Groups
It is however true that lawyers and judges come from a certain mindset. Since they have gone through similar education and experiences, they tend to have similar thought processes. Now, as individuals, there will indeed be a lot of discrepancies in their viewpoint, but as a whole, they think similarly. Or at least, there is a dichotomy. With a jury system, people from different backgrounds come together. There is scope for discussion and questioning. The people who play a role in the decision-making are also a part of society. However, there is also a chance that a juror might feel pressurized and not voice their true opinion because of peer pressure. Hence, although the different backgrounds are an advantage, it might not mean it always comes into play in reality.
Motivating decisions
Moreover, as my research on the topic informed me, jurors have no obligation to motivate their decision. When they come to a decision, they do not have to explain how they got there.2 I am not sure if this information is completely accurate. If it is, the following arguments are noteworthy. While is this good, because it is sometimes difficult to explain an instinct but it can also be dangerous. In the Netherlands, one of the reasons behind being forced to motivate a decision is that in the case of appeal, it becomes easier to tackle the points which brought the losing party to an unfavorable decision. More than this, asking to motivate a decision also makes a judge reevaluate their decision. It is a check mechanism. A judge could discover a discrepancy while trying to motivate a decision and prevent a mistake. When a decision does not have to be explained, the protections that this process brings for the trial parties, also get taken away.
Jurors have difficult jobs
Finally, the hardships that jury duty creates for an individual should also be considered. While jury duty could create a sense of service and make the individual feel like a valuable part of society there are also practical challenges. In some cases, the jurors must leave their jobs and come and serve. This can especially become a problem if the trial goes on for long. You could also have a job which involves regular travelling. To my understanding, it is possible to claim compensation for jury duty, but the possibilities are limited. Further, a juror could also feel a burden. Those involved in the legal system have been well trained. They are prepared to face the hardships that the legal system face presents and usually also have a support system in place. A juror might not have the same resources. Knowing that you make a majorly life-impacting decision for someone else can put a person in great distress.
To sum up everything, both legal systems with and without juries have pros and cons. There are good arguments in favour of both systems. I personally think not having a jury system is better. However, this could also come with a personal bias, since I work in a legal system that does not have a jury system. Again, this is just an opinion.
What do you think is better a legal system with or without juries? Do you have any interesting stories on this topic? Share your answers in the comments.