The trial of criminals by jury evolved in the 13-th century to replace trial by ordeal. Most civil cases were also tried by jury until 1854. The jury used to be widely regarded as one of the chief safeguards of the individual against the abuse of prerogative and judicial power. However, particularly in civil cases, juries were unpredictable and liable to make errors. In 1854 the Common Law Procedure Act provided that in civil cases the trial could be heard by a judge sitting alone if both parties consented. In 1933 civil juries were abolished in most cases.
To some people the whole idea of the jury seems absurd. 12 individuals usually with no prior contact with courts are chosen at random to listen to evidence, often of a highly technical nature. They are given no training, they deliberate in secret, they do not give reasons for their verdict, and they are responsible to no one but themselves. After making a decision affecting the liberty of another individual they merge back into the community.
Still, there are many passionate defenders of the jury. They argue that it is a check upon unpopular laws, that it is the best means for establishing the truth, that it serves an important political function by involving laymen in the administration of justice, and most important that it is a safeguard of justice.
It is clear that in general the jury enjoys the confidence of the public, the judiciary, lawyers, and the police. Although its verdicts are questionable more often than it was previously thought, it may well be that it reaches the right decision as often as can reasonably be expected of any tribunal.
In a Crown Court trial there are twelve jurors. These are ordinary members of the public between the ages of 18 and 70 who are selected at random. They are not paid but are given expenses while they are on jury service, which is usually for about two weeks. Service is compulsory and it cannot normally be avoided without a good reason, such as illness. It is not necessary for a juror to know anything about the law — indeed certain people connected with the world of law, such as solicitors, are not allowed to serve as jurors. This is because the job of the jury is to listen to the case and to decide questions of fact. It is the judge’s responsibility to guide them on questions of law.
This contrast between law and fact is very important. If a man is on trial for murder, for example, the judge will explain just what the crime of murder means in English law and what the prosecution has to prove. He will explain how the trial will be conducted, summarize the evidence, and tell the jurors what factors they should consider in making their decision. These are questions of law. However, whether the defendant did in fact commit murder or not is a question of fact to be decided by the jurors themselves. It is necessary for at least ten of the twelve to agree.
Дата добавления: 2015-07-11; просмотров: 89 | Нарушение авторских прав