School Essay: Professional Jurors v. the Current Juror System

Professional Jurors v. the Current Juror System

Leslie K. Penny

Module 7 Research Assignment 5

Chancellor University

Professional Jurors v. the Current Juror System

            The question of whether a system where professional jurors are paid to hear cases be better than our current system, where juries are comprised of our peers and selected randomly from voting roles to sit on jury duty, is one that has crossed many minds over the years.  One thing is certain, there are those that find the current jury system, one that does not work, especially when a murderer is found not guilty when every piece of evidence points directly at him and then there are those that could not imagine a change from the current system and would list all the negatives a professional paid jury system would succumb to. 

            According the website, The Law Essay Professionals, our current jury system encompasses several advantages such as:

·       Jury best reflect the views of the society because of random selection from a wide range of population.  When a person's liberty is at stake it is a matter of principle that s/he should be tried by his/hers peers.

·       The jury is regarded by the public as the 'bulwark of individual liberties'.

·       Fact-finding is a matter of common sense and does not require any specialized legal training.

·       The opinion of the 12 jurors is better than the single opinion of the judge since it will more likely help to prevent the individual biases.

·       It can be totally independent because it is unaccountable.

·       Juries are barometers of public feeling on the state of law, e.g. by deliberately acquitting against the weight of the evidence to express disapproval of a 'bad' or 'unpopular' law.

·       There is no satisfactory alternative to a lay jury.

·       The presence of the lay jury ensures that the proceedings are kept simple.

            According to (The Jury System), arguments against the current jury system include:

·       The argument that, due to the random selection, a jury represents the society is deceptive as the juries can comprise only to those, who are able to act as juror at the end of the selection process.

·       The jury is an uneducated body in the law and is often unable to weigh evidence properly and to understand certain complex matters.

·       The jury is not suitable for the complex fraud cases and these cases very often cause problems for the lay jury.  The Roskill Report (1986), albeit dated, recommended the replacement of the jury in such cases by a judge sitting with expert assessors.

·       Juries are often unable to understand the more complex distinction in the law, such as the distinction between murder and manslaughter.

·       Jurors may be dominated by two or three strong minded individuals in the jury.

·       It is a fact that juries acquit proportionately more defendants than magistrates do.  Many critics of the jury system argue that this is a major failing on the part of juries, arising either from their inability to perform their function properly, or from their sympathy with defendants, or both.

·       Jurors may be biased for or against certain groups-e.g. they may favor attractive members of the opposite sex, or be prejudiced against the police in cases of malicious prosecution or false imprisonment.

·       It is not possible to guarantee that there has been absolutely no tampering with the jury.

·       The unaccountability of the jury by virtue of the secrecy of the jury room, is against the democratic principles.  

            With that being said, a professionally paid jury would consist of individuals "who have received specialized training in reasoning skills and the scientific method..." who "might be trained and licensed through a specialized course, or perhaps have a relevant degree, such as the B.S. in the sciences" (Knapp, 2006).  Benefits of professional jury system would include the knowledge that "a jury that is trained in properly evaluating evidence is more likely to arrive at an accurate conclusion with respect to the trial's outcome" as well as "professional jurors would be more familiar with the trial setting, and would accordingly be less likely to be confused or intimidated by the proceedings" (Knapp, 2006). 

            It is believed that this familiarity would make certain that the jury is focused on the task at hand, focused on the testimony and evidence, not focused on the unfamiliar surroundings (Knapp, 2006).  Knapp brings up a great point, that a "professionally trained jury is unlikely to judge a case based on standards presented to them by CSI or Law and Order but rather they'll judge a case based on logic, the scientific method, and the actual evidence presented at trial".

            However, where there are pros, there are cons.  A professional jury could potentially become bias and prejudice  or become desensitized towards cases after a certain amount of time has been spent in the presence of one criminal after the other.  They can become corrupt having a politically motivated agenda.  We can all agree that we would have to ask the question: Would the panel of professional jurors remain reasonable?  "Would reasonable doubt remain reasonable under these conditions?" (Professional juries are better than the current system of peers).

            I found an article where a police officer by the name of Steven D. Hanks of the Hamilton, Ohio Police Department, argues why, logically, there should be a professional juror system in place.  He argues that jurors "are being asked to render a decision, often of the utmost importance, about which they have little or no knowledge" (Hanks, 2010).  He compares it to him having to learn mathematic algorithms or formulas to which he is clueless about.  Very interesting notion when you put it in those terms.  How often have jurors just went with the flow because they didn't quite understand the facts of the case or grasp the seriousness of the situation.  So far, I have come across several points that stated the smart jurors get out of jury duty, while the unsophisticated jurors are the ones that remain.  Or the educated jurors, who may have a better grasp on the situation, are dismissed. 

            To conclude, I would side with Police Officer Hanks who said "I grow weary of watching good cases get mishandled by incompetent juries.  Until we make some changes to the system of jury trials, the innocent will continue to be convicted and the guilty will continue to go free" (Hanks, 2010).  I feel that if we could have a pool of professional jurors to choose from that have proven to be logical, unbiased, mature, etc., it just might work.  The jurors would have to be rotated out to prevent burn out and desensitization.  I would be very curious to have one trial  with two separate juries, one of random peers and the other made up of professionals.  They would not know about the other as the trial would be podcasted.  I wonder how different the verdicts would be, if at all?  Now, that would be an interesting experiment. 

Works Cited

Hanks, S. D. (2010). Officer Makes His Case For Professional Juries. Retrieved April 21, 2013, from American Police Beat: http://www.apbweb.com/cops-speak-out/35-officer-makes-his-case-for-professional-juries.html

Knapp, A. (2006, Feb 13). Jury Duty No More. Retrieved April 21, 2013, from Ideas in Action with Jim Glassman: http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2006/02/jury-duty-no-more.html

Professional juries are better than the current system of peers. (n.d.). Retrieved April 21, 2013, from Politics New Zealand: http://www.politics.org.nz/webapps/cid/23106/44861/vote/vote-debate.html?questid=391

The Jury System. (n.d.). Retrieved April 21, 2013, from Law Teacher: The Law Essay Professionals : http://www.lawteacher.net/criminal-law/essays/the-jury-system.php