The Presence on Jury in a Fair Trial: Benefits and Threats
A jury is a body of people sworn to decide an impartial verdict requested legally by a court. This kind of judicial system can include a group of jurors expected to set penalties or judgments. This legal setup was first developed in England during the Middle Ages, and the latter has become a trademark of the Anglo-American governments. Several jury system advantages and disadvantages are worth considering when they have been applied as a unique legal structure merging the past with the present.
First and foremost, it is presumed constitutionally that people have been judged without any bias. Hence, it is targeted principally to eliminate conscious and unconscious bias from the judicial body by applying Jury Systems. Of course, it is not predicted to achieve a 100% guaranteed process, but it is reasonable logically to reduce the impact of the bias from entering into the judgments offered. Because some rights have been recognized for the plaintiff and the defendant in order to remove people who would not apply a fair perspective. This rule is applied, if even they do not want to play seriously in court rooms. It is acknowledged as a principal rule in a fair trial.
In addition, a search done by people shows us seemingly a jury cannot work professionally as a judge. Conversely, reliable information and collected data present that the accuracy rate of a jury is typically quite high. For example, the accuracy rate of verdicts issued by the jury system in the United States consistently shows the rate of 99.97% mark. The practical experiences present that most juries can catch the issues and render a fair outcome for the individual charged or sued, even if prosecutors bring cases before the court for personal reasons instead of professional ones. It is worth mentioning that the accuracy rate of such a legal structure changes it as one of the most effective systems in the world, irrespective of its reasons. Of course, it is merely slogan that it is possible to find a 100% perfect system.
Last but not least, the target predicted for a justice system is to create a criminal or civil case impartially. It is an approved outcome for juris to reserve the right to overrule in the courts when bias seems to exist. Hence, it is legally and logically expected from a jury to reflect on time in order to control the situation, when the verdict is probably to be issued as a result of a partial judgment for any reason.
It is obvious that juries are under no obligation to offer a decision based on facts. Nonetheless this drawback has not reported as often today as it did in the past. It is normal that a person can possibly make a decision on a verdict, judgment, or penalty based on their personal beliefs. Therefore, if the plaintiff or defendant in the case has inadequate legal representation, then it could be possible to “stack the jury” in their favor. In one famous incident, a jury found a millionaire to be not guilty of murder because of what a lawyer argued was “dementia Americana.” It was a supposed phenomenon where American men became temporarily insane when someone tainted the virtue of their wives.
Inaccurate jury decisions happened more often in violent and capital incidents, while people who are accused and their families of some crimes are verge of huge damages. The risk about them is not accepted on a fair trial. To approve this claim, the error rate for the jury system is consistently standing at 0.03%. Nevertheless, the majority of the cases were decided inaccurately typically those which involve violence categorized in felonies and capital murder cases.
Juries are not always required to come up with a unanimous verdict. It is a reason to change the result, while justice is expected by citizens without any excuse. To explain more, some countries allow a verdict to happen if a majority of the jury decides on a specific verdict, judgment, or penalty, instead of with consensus. For example, Australia allows majority verdicts in some states, permitting a single dissenter to exist without disrupting the final outcome. New Zealand also allows verdicts to pass at a similar ratio. It may be possible in some situations to have a 5-7 decision go through with a 12-person jury in some situations. Therefore, if a unanimous decision cannot be reached, the criminal trials may offer a reduced sentence to the defendant because of this outcome. It is not clear yet about the existence of justice or its application.
To sum up, it is clear that both advantages and disadvantages of the jury system lead us to restructure works reducing bias in fair verdicts, judgments, and penalties. Since this structure was innovated by humans to recognize the innocent people.This issue tends to take place more often when emotional cases get heard, especially in murder cases as well as violent felonies. But there is not any objective guarantee to achieve a just result completely. Since in a fair trial, it is not accepted to make even one mistake. It is a reason to raise potential concerns. The jury system is approaching 1,000 years of use in human government because of its effectiveness. Therefore, it is seemingly an excellent job of involving the community in the cause of justice. It is hopefully providing as many rights and protections as possible for those accused of wrongdoing.