The Jury: A Vestige of the Past, Unfit for the Future

Rather inanely, the Magna Carta signing in 1215 is retold as the origin of the jury. In fact, it was later under the reign of Henry II that barons insisted on a council to arbitrate land disputes, as this was markedly more favourable to them. The following twelve were a band of fact-finders determining whether someone should face trial and steadily morphed over the centuries into the considerably more passive group with whom we are presently familiar. The gradual decline in the jury’s influence was a natural one, brought on by swelling costs and shrinking rewards. Their presence little benefits our judicial system and should, as assuredly as it has declined, be phased out. 

Time and Money

Time and money are two things the courts never seem to get enough of, two things that juries exhaust unnecessarily. The more extensive of financial burdens arise from jury service claims which are up to £64.95 for more than 4 hours at court. Yet, this is only for the first ten days of service and can reach the staggering total of £129.91 a day. On top of this, a greater assembly of lawyers, clerks, ushers and witnesses are required for jury trials in comparison to other trials. The costs seem to shadow the time taken, an ever-turning wheel of cause and effect. Instructors must inform jurors of appropriate court conduct and the nature of legal proceedings. Judges must simplify the law into a palatable format for the lay participants. Then, jurors must be supervised, notified, and closely guided through the court process. These duties, in an effort to make optimum use of the jury, eat away at the precious supply of time with which the courts must juggle. 

Expenses not only pose burdensome to the courts, but to the jurors themselves. This duty requires one to take time off work, school, or abandon childcare and domestic duties. Jurors are not paid for their service and the claims available do not nearly match their daily wage. Employers, too, feel the economic strains of paying an absent employee, particularly in smaller businesses.

Notably, the above scenario takes place in a world where juries are the beacon of civic reliability. In reality, they are not. Only a third of people called up for jury service were available to fulfil their duties, with half of them deferring their duty and the other half wholly exempt. Of the other two thirds, 15% either did not attend on the day of the trial or their summonses were ‘undelivered’. Trials cannot begin without the stipulated twelve members; hence, unexpected absences cause unprecedented delays in the judicial calendar. The process of applying for exemption is complicated and long-winded, with court staff on the other end required to process and relay applications. The fines for non-absence (up to £1000) meet light and patchy enforcement. With inadequate punitive measures against non-absence, the courts lose further time, delaying trials that would proceed otherwise. The fines, if paid at all, do little to recompense the financial and temporal implications of absent jurors. 

Representation

It is hardly a secret that juries used to exclude large sections of the population: women, the lower classes and ethnic minorities. Initially, it may be argued that the current setup has long overcome these historic customs. However, closer observance of the modern jury would fiercely oppose such notion. Majority verdicts were first introduced in 1967, modifying the previous requirement for a unanimous decision to 10-2 (or 10-1 and 9-1) majorities. It should come as little surprise that prior to the reform fiery parliamentary debates arose surrounding the implications of ‘coloured’ migrants and the ‘labouring class’. These verdicts were ordered with insubstantial evidence backing their necessity. Guised as a precaution against ‘nobbling’, the amendment was a successful measure to suppress the voices of the one or two minority-ethnic, lower-class jurors. Evidently, the jury system is built upon a foundation of prejudice and elitism. Such foundations are susceptible to collapse, held together only 

by the weak strands of precedence, and the beat of the reform drum cannot mask its incompatibility with modern society. 

Whilst discriminatory on a fundamental level at worst, juries are unrepresentative at best.  Eligibility for jury service entails being registered to vote. This disproportionately impacts those in their early-20s, ethnic minorities and those of lower socio-economic status, minimising their presence in the selection pool. Additionally, there is no provision in law that necessitates a representative jury, leading to a simple random selection of twelve with no consideration for the various society groups. A narrower pool of candidates results in underrepresentation. Homogenous juries deliberate less, are more receptive to cultural biases, and are overall less thorough in their analysis of evidence. To add, those belonging to highly demanding occupations are most likely to apply for excusals or deferrals, including doctors, lawyers, police officers and members of the clergy. This evident lack of technical expertise reduces the diversity of knowledge within a jury, curtails the quality of discussion, and results in a lower calibre of adjudication.     

Theatrics

As a barrister, jury trials present the added burden of not only convincing a judge, but a throng of inconvenienced, and perhaps disinterested, laymen of one’s case. This transforms an ideally straightforward procedure into one of dramatic characterisations. Efforts to engage said jury often tempt barristers into the realm of theatrics. Such was the case with Tessa Sanderson, whose case was plagued with humiliating references to her private sexual relationships. At her reputational expense, the jury was well amused with presentations of her adultery. Allusions to the fall from grace were duly entertained, with comments that she had tasted the ‘forbidden fruits’ being hurled across the courtroom floor. 

It is commonplace that before a jury, female defendants will be neatly packaged into the archetype of the respectable family woman. This is countered by portrayals of a promiscuous or hyper-masculine figure who, in her crime, has subverted the laws of nature and whose punishment holds both legal and moral significance. Here is a decided lack of nuance, done so to dilute the case into as digestible a format as possible. It is due to the jury’s lay quality that they are greater convinced by sentiment over unadulterated fact alone. 

Ethnic minorities face further demonisation before the jury. Black men are portrayed as violent and malicious by the other side, susceptible to bouts of senseless rage and unfaithful to the traditional, upstanding family unit. Black women do not receive the same sympathies as their white counterparts, painted with the same vicious brush, alongside added accents of hypersexuality that render them largely abandoned during cases of sexual assault. When considered against the backdrop of a deeply unrepresentative jury, these depictions hold greater sway over the final verdict, exacerbating the institutional failures of the judiciary. 

Such conduct perverts the nature of justice, twisting it into a game of sympathies and personalities. Making caricatures of the defendants, accused or witnesses prioritises melodrama over the honest display of facts. This takes advantage of the inherent biases a lay jury may carry with them: disregard for unconventional sexual practices or more sinister prejudices like race and social class. Without this superfluous addition, barristers would not feel compelled to lean into such eccentricities. 

Trauma

It is argued that citizen involvement in the judicial system is the optimum method for building trust with it. This rather fantastical rhetoric is swiftly toppled by research into juror trauma and its impacts. With recent technological advancements, the realism of evidence submitted has progressed. Jurors are now exposed to 3D printed replicas of human skeletal remains and higher-quality imagery of injury 

and death. Such unfettered and routine confrontation with triggering content may cause past trauma to resurface, leading to PTSD symptoms such as sleep disturbances, headaches, and depression. These emotional and physical consequences can translate into long-term health impairments and severely impact a juror’s daily functions indefinitely. Effective mental health treatment is difficult to access with existing strains on the NHS, so jurors are often left to battle with the traumatic aftermath of their duty in isolation. A system that permanently scars you inspires neither faith nor hope and leaves a juror worse off than initially. Abolishment of the jury system is crucial in protecting the wellbeing of active members of our society who, rather than sacrifice their health futilely, could contribute in more constructive ways. 

Trauma is not a struggle solely for the jurors, rather victims of sexual violence often cite that jury trials evoke immense distress. Their vulnerabilities are openly splayed across the courtroom floor before a crowd of their peers; such process is often reported as just as traumatic as the crime itself. Overwhelming evidence indicates that juries are not suitable. Rape myths often prevail among juries, beliefs that blame the victim, cast doubt on allegations, vindicate the perpetrator, and beliefs surrounding how a ‘real’ rape should appear.  25 out of 28 studies conducted between 1984 and 2019 highlight that juries who scored high on the Rape Myth Acceptance Scale were less likely to find a defendant guilty of rape. Persistent biases have an evident impact on the verdicts returned, undermining the principles of evidence-based, impartial justice. Such verdicts only contribute further to the survivors’ traumatic experiences as they fall victim to yet another oppressor: the jury.  

On the decline

There seems to be a consensual understanding that juries are not nearly worth the costs they incur. 94% of defendants in criminal courts are now not trialled by juries. Their participation in our judicial system has gradually waned over the years, only present in a handful of criminal cases.  If we remain faithful to this trend, juries should be on a peaceful way out. As the practice demonstrates, if only 6% of criminal cases deem a haphazard assortment of citizens beneficial to a trial, the demand for such contribution is unconvincing.

Conclusion

For all involved, there appears to be an inconvenient and fruitless cost to jury trials, with jurors proving more a liability than an asset. Their inception could boast of no altruistic causes and their ability to adequately represent a community is underwhelming at best. With jurors playing both perpetrator and victim in the onslaught of court trauma, this system of adjudication poses unprecedented psychological risks. To add, the uninspiring level of legal expertise only enfeebles their judicial strength. Calls for reform are honourable but to no avail. Piecing back together the shards of the jury system should only wound the whole structure. It is far more beneficial to let go of this vestige of the middle-ages and follow the example of the majority of legal systems around the world. With the abolition of the jury comes inevitably an epoch of expert and impartial justice, an age in which we rectify the failures of this broken precedent, and, ultimately, the acceptance of a fated conclusion.