Jury Trials; Give Juries Freedom to Work
by I’m wondering whether current emphasis on isolating juries is best for the justice system; it doesn’t work anyhow. It’s better to manage the process through education and transparency.
Image via Wikipedia
The Jury Trial system is getting more and more publicity surrounding the tendency of juries to discuss cases, read newspapers, research the Internet and generally ignore Judge, Prosecutor, and Defense Instructions to the contrary.
Why? While juries are instructed to decide cases based on the facts and weighing of the evidence presented, a long history of attempting to “insulate” juries as a result of attempted jury tampering through coercion, bribery, cultural influences and more, has resulted in juries either ignoring or defying such instructions by reading and researching information to help them decide.
It’s time for the Justice System to recognize “the facts on the ground” and concentrate more on helping juries the right way, with creating a methodology and framework for jury deliberations that doesn’t try to restrict their considerations into a narrow, insulated mold, but provides an educational process to enable an honest and thorough completion of their task.
Prosecutors and Defense attorneys both want to influence and “control” the jury; they see that as their job.
But jury control, filtering of information, exclusion of facts, all aid in the diminution of the jury process, and contrary to what the media and others write, it ill serves the defendants and the cause of fair and impartial justice.
Constitutional rights to a Trial by Jury (Article Three of the Constitution) of Peers (consistently ruled on by the Supreme Court in favor of broader definition of Peers and right of inclusion) have been here since our Founding.
The origination of the Peer definition started in England, and as considered and established in the U.S. meant that Peers were fellow community members, even those of similar class and experience, and in the old days even people who knew the defendant were not excluded; smaller populations meant there was no choice but to include those who knew the defendant; those who were related were always excluded.
Today, Prosecutors and Defense Counsel seek to gain advantage in the jury process by controlling the “facts” and evidence presented to the jury; using “experts” to explain complicated issues, and even experts differ in the meaning of evidence.
Liked it
