by Charlotte Osullivan

Created on: February 07, 2007   Last Updated: April 19, 2007

Evaluating whether juries should be abolished within the English legal system?

Juries have been used within the English legal system for many years.
Is it now time for us to use an alternative when we are determining a person innocents or guilt or perhaps we should sick to the original method which has been proved to be working for generations. For years now MP's and legal departments have been debating on whether the current system used on trailing a defendant should be changes or not, and some changes have been made to the way in which we trail defendants but are these enough?

The argument for the use of juries within the English legal system is very strong but so is that off why we should no longer use juries.

Considering Juries have been around for several centuries and this is the method inwhich our country has decided upon using for centuries it is fair to say that the public have confidence in this system. And for good reasons the public have confidence in this system. But then should the public really have so much confidence in 12 strangers with no legal knowelege or training deciding something that will influlence anothers life for ever. Then becasue of the fact that they are 12 individuals with no legal training or knowlege so may agree that this means that they are able to decide case on fairness. For example in the case of R V Pointing in 1984. In this case a civil servent had let some information slip, but it was said that it was done for public intrest, the juries decided not to convict dispite there being no legal defence. In this case if it had not been heard by a jury I am sure that the outcome would have been different, this case has clearly not been decided on a legal issuse but rather that off a fairness issue. On the other hand allowing 12 strangers with no legal knowelege or training decideing cases could lead to perverse decisions which are not justified, In the case of RV Randle and Pottle in 1991 this was highlighted when jury decided not too convict after they wrote a book about their crimes 25 years later.
Another arguement put forward in the debate that using the current system of juries is best is that of it makes the public involved in the whole proceedings and so therefore makes the system open, This is off course by anyones argument benfical for society, not only should society by seeing what is happening with in the courts system to highten public confidence it also limits the about of curpsion with in the justice system. Others

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>