Jury Trial within the English Legal System Essay Example

prison sentence or detention for public protection that exceeds five years.

If any of the following criteria apply to you within the past 10 years, you may be disqualified from serving as a juror:

• Being imprisoned
• Having a suspended sentence
• Receiving a community order or other community sentence

In addition, if you are currently on bail in criminal proceedings or have a serious mental illness or mental handicap, you are ineligible to serve as a juror.

Jurors chosen through computer selection will be sent a summoning letter that includes information about their court appearance, directions to the courthouse, and trial dates. The letter will also indicate that jury duty usually lasts for two weeks, although some trials may require more time. To ensure that the correct number of jurors are summoned, the Central Summoning Bureau cooperates closely with the courts. However, if you find it inconvenient or prefer not to serve on a jury for a particular trial, it is crucial to inform the court beforehand.

To qualify for an exemption, certain criteria must be fulfilled. These criteria encompass completing jury duty in the last 2 years, being 65 years or older, actively serving in the Armed Forces, Royal Navy, Royal Navy Nursing Service, or any voluntary aid detachment with the Royal Navy (with a certification from a commanding officer proving that your absence would negatively impact service), or having personal grounds for seeking pardon.

If you are unable to attend jury service within the next year, you must provide a written explanation to the Jury Central Summoning Bureau. Alternatively, if you do not want to attend jury service, you must send a letter to the court stating your reasons. This type of

excuse from jury service is known as discretionary excusal and it is ultimately at the discretion of the court whether they will grant your request for exemption. In such cases, the court is more likely to reschedule your jury service for a later date rather than completely exempting you. However, if your excuse is not accepted, it is still mandatory for you to appear in court. Failure to comply may result in a fine of up to ?1000.

As a juror, it is vital to inform employers and those affected by your service. Once summoned, you must wait until the designated date. Upon reaching the court, bags may be checked by security guards in the presence of a court official. Next, you will join fellow former jurors in the jury assembly area where they will verify your name. Timeliness is crucial for a smooth process during this stage. At times, a court official will randomly choose 12 individuals to compose the jury.

In this procedure, you will be taken to a courtroom where a jury is necessary only if the defendant pleads 'not guilty'. There is a waiting room next to the courtroom that separates you and other jurors from everyone else in court. Afterwards, an usher will lead you and your fellow jurors into the courtroom. The usher will provide a set of cards to the clerk, who will then randomly call out people's names.

When your name is called, you will be asked to sit in the jury box. Once all 12 jurors are seated, you must take an oath. This involves selecting a sacred book and promising to speak only the truth. You can either

read from cards or echo the words of a court official. However, if you have any acquaintances in the courtroom, you must notify the judge who will decide whether you can remain on the jury. It is permissible to converse about the case with fellow jurors, but it is illegal to discuss it with individuals who are not part of the jury.

In a criminal proceeding, the defendant is accused of committing a crime. The prosecution advocate presents the allegations and provides evidence to support their case. First, prosecution witnesses are called to testify and undergo questioning and cross-examination. Then, defense witnesses go through the same process. It is important to note that the judge can stop any irrelevant questions as needed.

After the presentation of evidence, both sides give their closing speeches and address the jury. The judge then summarizes his expectations for the jury and highlights key points from the case, possibly explaining relevant laws as well. All 12 jurors then proceed to the jury room accompanied by an usher. There, they deliberate and discuss their verdict after carefully considering all the evidence. Prior to this process, you would have received an indictment listing the charges against the defendant.

Once a verdict is reached, the foremen will be asked by the clerk to provide their decision. Their role is then finished. If the defendant is found guilty, the judge can either sentence them immediately or request pre-sentencing reports from the probation service. The defendant will need to appear in court on a later date. After these steps, the foremen will be accompanied again by the usher to the Jury Assemble Area.

The jury service requires individuals to

report back to court officials after a trial for potential participation in another jury within their two-week service. Now that the operation of the jury service has been explained, what are your thoughts? Is it effective and efficient? Does it truly benefit the community or is it too inconvenient? These are the questions that will be addressed in my coursework. The advantages of having a jury include public involvement and the opportunity for individuals from diverse backgrounds to participate in the legal process. However, there are also drawbacks associated with these benefits. In my analysis, I will share personal opinions and incorporate perspectives from others regarding this system.

The purpose of the concept is to have a diverse representation of society by allowing the defendant to be tried by his/her peers. Additionally, involving ordinary people helps in simplifying the law and making it accessible to all. However, a drawback is that the verdict does not necessitate specific reasoning, limiting understanding of the case only to the jury's awareness.

V. Conner & Rollock, a juror, communicated with the crown court expressing that the jury was unsure about which defendants were responsible for the stabbing. Consequently, to "teach them both a lesson," they convicted both individuals. While this approach may promote public participation, it is evident that the lack of knowledge can significantly impact the outcome of the case. Another alternative involving a jury could be to employ "A panel of Judges." This method would enhance comprehension and expertise; however, it would eliminate public input, which could incur substantial costs in searching for numerous judges. One advantage of juries is that having 12 individuals on the panel excludes biases

towards the case. Nevertheless, juries lack a specific vested interest in the proceedings.

The effectiveness of this method is based on utilizing a majority vote to make decisions, unless there is complete agreement, which is rare. Furthermore, the impartiality stems from being unfamiliar with the individuals involved. Likewise, juries are expected to make decisions without being swayed by external influences and maintain an objective position. However, in 'R v. McKenna (1960), the guilt of the defendant was affected by coercion when the judge threatened to hold the jury if they did not reach a verdict within 10 minutes. Although these occurrences are now less common, they still happen occasionally.

I believe that having an impartial jury is crucial for ensuring a fair trial and the administration of justice. While having a large number of jurors may be efficient in terms of numbers, it requires more time to explain the case and the law to them. As a result, this leads to increased time and costs for the case. A better alternative approach to jury service is to have 'A Judge; Two Lay Assessors;' as it eliminates the slowness and expense associated with using a jury. This method also maintains public involvement compared to 'A Panel Of Judges'.

One advantage of the 'jury trial' method is the concept of jury equity, which means that a judge cannot overrule a jury's verdict. This gives the jury the power to reject an unjust law. For instance, Michael Randle and Patrick Pottle confessed to assisting a spy in escaping from prison 25 years ago but were found not guilty by the jury, possibly due to the lengthy delay between the crime and

the trial. However, this advantage can also be a disadvantage as jurors may acquit individuals without sufficient justification, as demonstrated in my example. Therefore, an alternative approach involving a 'single judge' may be more efficient since it eliminates both chances of a judge overruling the decision and unwarranted acquittals.

Despite the misconception, a trial with only one judge is strongly disapproved in modern society because it can result in an unjust trial. Furthermore, this problem is worsened by the impact of the media. As a highly influential tool, the media has the ability to manipulate jurors and shape their biased views regarding a case. Consequently, many people consider jury trials to be tiresome, ineffective, and simply pointless. While not every case necessitates a jury, it remains crucial to have one accessible when required.

When people have the mindset of participating in jury service, they take time off from work with the anticipation of being involved in a case, just like Trevor Clarke. He expresses that there are high expectations regarding the case one may be assigned, but there is also the possibility of not getting assigned to a case if someone pleads guilty. This can be disappointing because it prevents one from experiencing the complete process of a court case. This approach may seem inefficient, but if a judge and jury are both necessary, why not combine the two? "A judge and a mini jury" is an option that involves having a smaller jury consisting of only 6 or 7 people.

The main objective of this proposal is to reduce the number of jurors required for jury service, resulting in cost savings but also reducing public participation. However,

most of the criticisms regarding the jury system mentioned earlier would still be applicable. In my view, a more effective approach would involve a judge overseeing the case while allowing a jury to reach an impartial verdict. Moreover, courts should offer a more comprehensive explanation of the case rather than rushing through it. Although this may entail serving on only one case during a two-week period of jury service, I believe it would enhance judicial efficiency. To conclude, although there are situations where the jury system functions effectively, there is room for improvement in its implementation.

It is widely acknowledged in our society that both individuals and society as a whole cannot achieve perfection. However, the legal field attracts intelligent individuals due to its dealings with the imperfect aspects of human nature. While we can never attain flawlessness in our human nature, we must learn to navigate using the available resources. From my perspective, I find our system to be effective but there are alternative approaches if any problems arise.

With the advancement and development of society, it becomes crucial for the law to adapt and change accordingly. This can be seen in the abolishment of capital punishment as a clear example. The future holds unforeseen opportunities for legal progress. However, one undeniable fact remains: our society would exist in a state of barbaric disorder instead of a cultured community if it were not for law.