Is the Jury System still Relevant Today?
The jury system is a prominent feature of the criminal justice system where a group of citizens (12 in England and Wales, but this varies internationally) decide the verdict of a trial in court. Their primary function is to reach a decision impartially. However, due to bias and the presence of social media, people are beginning to question whether the jury remains relevant to the legal system today.
Trial by jury has been entrenched in the English and Welsh criminal justice systems for around 1,000 years. However, trial methods and the individuals involved have changed over time. In medieval England, before jury trials, trials by ordeal were used to determine whether the defendant was guilty, forcing defendants to undergo an ‘ordeal’ to prove their innocence. A popular example was trial by water, where the defendant would be thrown into a body of water –if they floated, they were innocent and if they sank, they were guilty. This ancient practice was based on the idea that a divine being would interfere and reveal the truth. Trial by jury became an important phenomenon in King John’s Magna Carta 1215, which established the right for a man to be punished was only according to the ‘the lawful judgement of his equals’. Although a cornerstone development, this right was reserved for noblemen and was not universally applied. Unlike juries of today, they did not determine criminal cases or civil wrongs but property disputes between individuals. The right stated in the Magna Carta has since been universalised through the Habeas Corpus Act 1679. Additionally, the precedent set in Bushel‘s Case 1670, established that jurors are free to rule independently as they cannot be punished for the verdict they decide, mirroring the principles of the jury today. This has since been reinforced by R v Wang 2005.
A jury's fundamental role is to reach a verdict impartially, based on the factual evidence presented in court. I will now assess whether the jury system in England and Wales appropriately does this.
Some argue the jury system is no longer relevant because jurors are not necessarily legal professionals, meaning they may act inconsistently. This argument is derived from jurors being human, fallible and susceptible to making mistakes. The Channel 4 television series The Jury: Murder Trial portrays two separate juries being presented with the same facts of a real-life murder case. The series presents the flaws of this system as the juries ruled differently – one jury believed the defendant was guilty and the other that he was innocent. Although there was only one real jury, this series highlights the flaws with the system – it places the fate of the defendant in the hands of human beings who are inconsistent and unreliable. This popular series revealed the complex psychological interactions between jurors and their impact on the verdict. Furthermore, as ordinary citizens, jurors may not have legal training, causing unprofessional behaviour which can jeopardise the defendant. This is evident in R v Young where the defendant, Stephen Young, had been accused of breaking into the cottage of Harry and Nicole Fuller in Essex, subsequently shooting them dead. Whilst sequestered in their hotel, the jurors decided to use a Ouija board to contact the deceased victims to find out whether Young was guilty. Unsurprisingly, after the guilty verdict, Young appealed and was retired. This case displays the dangers of allowing ordinary individuals to reach a verdict, enhancing the case against the jury system’s relevance today.
Another problem raised when discussing the relevance of the jury is the method by which they make decisions. The Story Model is the most frequently referenced model of juror decision-making. It suggests that jurors use evidence provided during a trial, curate a story of events, and utilise this to reach a verdict. Some find this problematic as jurors do not solely use evidence but also rely on pretrial experiences and biases towards the prosecution or defence, suggesting that jury trials are not always carried out impartially. This method risks bias, emotional influence, and an oversimplification of the legal system, all of which threaten the function of the jury. Alongside this, the introduction of the unanimous verdict rule may pressure jurors to reach an agreement during their deliberation. If unable, the trial will persist. This is exacerbated by the different personalities of individuals within a jury. Uncertain jurors may change their view to align with the opinion of the more assertive characters, indicating that jurors are not as independent as they initially seem. This is demonstrated through the ‘Classic Asch line Study’ conducted in the 1950s, which showed individuals conforming to a group idea, even if it was not their belief to begin with. Asch’s study can be applied to jurors who might disregard their evaluation of evidence in favour of the group's idea.
Despite these arguments, there are strong points in favour of the jury system. In England and Wales, jurors are randomly selected by the Jury Central Summoning Bureau (JCSB) from the electoral voting register. This is computer-generated to ensure that selection is entirely random. Every individual on the electoral voting registers has an equal chance of being selected for jury duty, ensuring that selection is not biased or manipulated. There are also eligibility criteria that a juror must fulfil which can be found in the Juries Act 1974. For example, an individual must have the mental capacity to make such a decision, with the definition of ‘mental capacity ‘ under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This selection process lays the foundation for a properly functioning jury as individuals are randomly selected, preventing bias or the use of personal experience to influence decision-making.
The selection process, whilst efficient, cannot eradicate all bias. Therefore, there are mechanisms in place to mitigate biased verdicts. For example, both the prosecution and the defence can challenge the juror (e.g. if they know a witness), the prosecution can ask a juror to ‘stand by’, and judges can remove jurors based on confirmed bias. For example, when the jurors used the Ouija board in R v Young, they were dismissed. Social media usage to discover more about the case during a trial is prohibited, and if this happens, it is considered a contempt of court and the juror will be removed and charged. In 2013, Joseph Beard was brought before the High Court for using the internet to research information about the prosecution and passing this on to his fellow jurors.
A study conducted by Professor Thomas at University College London found that the decision-making process of jurors is usually based on the evidence presented in court. He found that the probability of a jury convicting the defendant was impacted by the type of offence committed. Offences that lacked robust evidence had lower conviction rates than those with strong evidence such as photographs. Juries do make decisions based on evidence and the law rather than bias. This then illustrates that juries do fulfil their function and so remain a relevant process in the legal system today. Additionally, the idea that jurors oversimplify cases can be confidently dismissed by the fact that 89% of verdicts are reached through deliberation and less than 1% of juries are discharged. Hence, it is clear jurors do not oversimplify, but accurately understand the cases they decide.
While bias can be prevented and dealt with accordingly, one must deal with the last problem being discussed by legal professionals today– jury trials are straining the legal system. In September 2024, there were 73,105 outstanding legal cases, compared to 33,000 in March 2019. Due to this backlog, former English judge, Sir Brian Leveson has proposed the replacement of some jury trials with intermediate courts. These courts would deal with the criminal cases deemed too severe for the Magistrates’ Courts and not severe enough for the Crown Courts. Leveson, amongst others, believes that jury trials are time-consuming and that decreasing them will alleviate the pressures placed on legal professionals and solve the backlog. However, given that funding for the justice system fell by 22.4% between 2010 and 2023, in the same time frame government spending increased by 10%. This issue could be better solved by greater investment in the criminal justice system.
The relevance of the jury system remains a topic that will be debated by individuals, psychologists, and lawyers for years to come. However, it is still an integral part of the legal system as it grants both punishment and justice impartially, making it difficult to remove or replace. Aside from this, the jury system has another purpose– educating citizens about the reality of criminal cases, court hearings, and legal proceedings through involving them in this process, a feature which intermediate courts cannot imitate. The jury system is not perfect, nonetheless, it remains relevant to the current legal framework.
By Courtney Taku
