Discuss the drawback of the jury system as it is implemented in the UK The WritePass Journal

Discuss the drawback of the jury system as it is implemented in the UK Introduction Discuss the drawback of the jury system as it is implemented in the UK : 1). It is arguable whether this demonstrates the ineffectiveness of jury systems but it is evident that the Germans do not agree with them. Jury trials were also abandoned in India following the case of K.M. Nanavati v State of Maharashtra [1962] Suppl 1 SCR 567 where it became clear that juror’s decisions were capable of being influenced by the media and the public. As put by Debroy; â€Å"the Nanavati case was responsible for abolition of jury trials in India and it was the last trial by jury† (2009: 1). It was also identified by Debroy that there is a correlation in India between the abolishment of jury trials and the prolonging of cases (2009: 2). In view of this, it cannot be said that jury trials should be completely abolished in the UK as cases may actually be prolonged as a result and there are various safeguards that have been implemented so as to ensure juries are not being influenced by the media and the public (Rackstraw, 2008: 726). Therefore, whilst jury systems do create difficulties, it cannot be said that they should be completely discarded as a result as they are still considered a vital p art of the justice system. Furthermore, if jury trials were abolished it is likely that this would result in prolonged trials as is the case in India. Furthermore, judges would also be capable of producing prejudicial decisions, which would ultimately contravene Article 6 of the ECHR which provides for a defendants rights to a fair trial. In a study that was conducted by Sturcke, it was found that; two in three jurors did not fully understand the legal directions and that more than one in 10 jurors carried out their own investigations online about a case (2010: 1). This study was based on 69,000 cases over a two-year period, which highlights the injustices that can actually be caused by a jury trial. This seems to provide a strong argument as to why jury trials should be abolished, however problems will still be caused by judge alone trials. In effect, it appears as though there ought to be a balance so that juries do remain, yet where cases are likely to be prejudiced a judge alone trial should be conducted. Essentially, this is what seems to be happening at present as jury trials are being discarded in serious and complex fraud cases, yet whether this scope should be broadened to allow for their elimination in other cases is likely. This will ensure that juries are maintained, on the one hand, whilst also enabling them to be discarded in cases which would be difficult for them to cope with. Whether this means that there will be an effective jury system in place, is however arguable. Conclusion Overall, there are many underlying difficulties which emerge from a trial by jury, yet it cannot be said that they should be completely eradicated. This is because judge alone trials will also have many drawbacks, which demonstrates the need for the jury system to be maintained. In order to prevent unfair outcomes from being produced, it is therefore necessary that a balance is attained which could be achieved by removing juries from serious and complex cases and those which would have a damaging effect on their ability to cope. Referencing Baksi, C., (2014) ‘Bias has ‘significant’ effect on verdicts, jury research says’ The Law Society Gazette, Available [Online] at: lawgazette.co.uk/practice/bias-has-significant-effect-on-verdicts-jury-research-says/5039295.article [23 April, 2014]. Debroy, B. Nanavati and Jury Trials, Law Resource India, (2009), Available [Online] at: http://indialawyers.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/nanavati-and-jury-trials/ [23 April, 2014]. Doran, S; McConville, M. and Wilson, G. The Handbook of the Criminal Justice Process, OUP Oxford, 1st Edition, (2002), p. 379. Elliott, C. and Quinn, F. (2010) English Legal System, Longman, 11th Edition. Gastil, J., and Weiser, P., (2006) ‘Jury Service as an Invitation to Citizenship: Accessing the Civic Value of Institutionalised Deliberation’ Legal Studies Research Paper, 06-32. Gastil, J., Deess, E., and Weiser, P., (2002) ‘Civic Awakening in the Jury Room: A Test of the Connection between Jury Deliberation and Political Participation’ Journal of Politics, Volume 64, No. 2, 585-595. Herzog, F. Philosophical and Social View of the Jury: Could it Have a Renaissance in Germany? (2012) Available [Online] at: www.cairn.info/load_pdf.php?ID_ARTICLE=RIDP_721_0553 [23 April, 2014]. Laville, S. Heathrow Robbery Trial Breaks with 400 Year Tradition of Trial by Jury, The Guardian, (10 January, 2010), Available [Online] at: guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/10/heathrow-robbery-trial-jury-twomey [23 April, 2014]. Lesser, M. A. (2010) The Historical Development of the Jury System, Kessinger Publishing: London. Lloyd-Bostock, S. The Jubilee Line Jurors: does their experience strengthen the argument for judge-only trial in long and complex fraud cases? Criminal Law Review, Crim L.R. 255, (2007). Rackstraw, M., (2008) In the Balance New Law Journal, Volume 158, Issue 7322. Sanders, A. and Young, R. Criminal Justice, OUP Oxford, 3rd Edition, (2006). Stone, J., and Dennis, R., (2003) ‘Race and Ethnicity’ Comparative and Theoretical Approaches, 1-7. Sturke, J. Jurors ‘struggle’ to understand judges, study finds, The Guardian, (17 February, 2010), Available [Online] at: guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/17/jurors-judges-legal-advice-report [23 April, 2014]. The Auld Report, Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales, Chapter 5, Juries, Available [Online] at: criminal-courts-review.org.uk/ccr-05.htm [23 April, 2014]. Thomas, C. and Balmer, N. Diversity and Fairness in the Jury System, The Ministry of Justice Research Series 2/07, (June, 2007), Available [Online] at:   justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/JuriesReport2-07-webVersion.pdf [23 April, 2014]. Zander, M., (2007) a Touch of Bias New Law Journal, Volume 157, Issue 7295. Cases Condron v UK (2000) 31 EHRR 1 Jubilee Line K.M. Nanavati v State of Maharashtra 1959