Should we abolish the jury?

I don't know why I'm evening my wit to you, as I feel you know rightly:

Juries help to eliminate the issue of bias within the justice system.

The process of voir dire helps to create an impartial jury.

Lay person participation in the legal system is considered central to a healthy democracy. Lawyers play a major role in making the laws in parliament. Judges then apply the laws. If juries weren’t used, lawyers would have a monopoly over the law.

Juries check the abuses of government power by judges.

Juries help the criminal justice system reflect the values and standards of the general public.

Juries try questions of fact, not law. legal training does not assis in making findings of fact. In some ways it can be a hindrance.

Panels of judges are going to be composed of judges who, in common law jurisdictions are former lawyers. Members of such panels have a lot in common in terms of their educational experience and their life experiences. Members of a jury are asked to decide whether they believe a proposition to be true or otherwise by reference to their own experience. The chances are much higher that 12 people chosen at random will have a much greater range of life experience than a panel chosen from a very small group who are from the same socio economic level, and likely to have a similar educational background and be middle-aged.

Our system is a little outdated. Jurors should be screened and asked a series of case relevant questions before being accepted as part of the panel. Falsification of answers should carry a punishment. To use your sexual assault example, I think any potential juror who has either been a victim of, a past complainant of, or has a close relative/partner who suffered such an abuse should be excluded from the jury panel due to the high likelihood of emotional bias. I know I would be bias if I was a victim, or my OH was a victim, so despite my intention to be objective, I don't believe I would be in those circumstances.

Just to argue the opposite. Isn't the idea of allowing the jurors life experiences guide them a central part of the very qualities we want to have in a juror?

They need life experience in order to judge whether something was likely done or not done, to emotionally be aware of the relevant conditions, and the motivations for the acts?

I think you definitely have a point about people who have been victims of a crime not being chosen, but i think being close to those victims is a step to far. If i am correct, dont we also screen jurors with such questions before they are selected? Each side gets to ask questions and dismiss jurors?

Valid point, but in some types of trials, it would be detrimental to the defendant if jurors with emotional bias were to be part of the panel making judgement which could land an innocent person behind bars for a long time, or even a short time.

Regarding the closeness to victims I would ask you this; If your partner had been mugged and sexually assaulted by an ethnic minority and you found yourself on a panel deliberating on a case against a person of the same ethnicity for robbery and sexual assault, how would your emotional state be? Could you be completely impartial, or might the similar circumstances your partner (and by extension, you) experienced taint your view?

I consider myself a reasonable and just person, but even I would not be foolish enough to think I would be impartial in such circumstances as I would unintentionally draw negative emotions from my experience which would bias me unfairly against the defendant. Perhaps others could detach themselves wholly under similar circumstances.

I agree the jury system is a better one than judges on a panel, or acting alone. However, even a single biased juror is too many when someone is facing jail time. 1 or 2 biased jurors could be enough influence to send an innocent person to prison. I would like to see jurors who fail declare possible conflicts of interest facing appropriate consequences if such things are not disclosed at the time of selection and questioning. At the very least, a mistrial would be called as the juror would have likely had some influence on the other jurors. The costs financially wouldn't be small either for defendants paying their own costs.

I was on a jury once. It really shook any faith i might have had in the jury system right out of me.

A group of 3 people had the person convicted on sight. There was no changing their mind at all all through the whole thing.

And they would gang up on the weaker members of the jury too. They were very intimidation altogether.

Another person joined up with them on day 2 so they wouldnt be bullied anymore.

And the reasons they had for their opinions on the accused were shocking. Lets just say they were not evidence based in the least.

You are underestimating how even a single person can influence and persuade a group. One person can do it by planting suggestions early on and letting them sit while backing up their earlier suggestions by cherry picking points made in court. Or as suggested, they can just be the bigger personality and use that to persuade, or even bully others to join their train. 1 can quickly become 6,7, or 8 and then it's just a matter of time before the rest fall in line.

The influential member(s) might just be closed minded, or they might just have their own agenda. We should do our best to bring about the truth and have unbiased juries insofar as is possible. Right now, the method of selecting and approving jury members is flawed and should be changed. It might then just keep another innocent person from incarceration.

"Or even a jury of law students." - this is possibly the worst possible choice. People without practical experience, but with all the pre-conceived notions. They may also know that sections of evidence have been excluded and be prejudicial about this.

You dont just meet afterwards. You go back to the jury room together. You have lunch together and then you deliberate together. Its a lot of time alone in each others company. Even though you are told not to discuss it outside the jury room, it gets discussed at lunch. You also meet the odd person going home or coming in and it gets discussed then too. And some of them you can tell have been looking up the witnesses the next day by what they are saying about them, even though they wont tell you. You just wonder how do they suddenly know x, y and z about this person.

Of course you look them up yourself after the trial and you find out where they got that info during the trial.