The United States (U.S) founders are lauded for their support of the right to a jury trial in both civil and criminal cases. This backing was based on the proposition that this right protected their hard-won sovereignties, both independently and jointly ( Burbank & Subrin, 2011 ; De Tocqueville, 2003). Consequently, Article III of the U.S Constitution states that “The trial of all crimes, except cases of impeachment, shall be by jury.” The inclusion of this right in America’s supreme law indicates the importance placed on it by the founders. Further, they regarded trial by jury as an essential safeguard against corruption and tyranny in the government. It was seen as a defense too valuable to be left to the whims of the government or its judiciary. In this context, Thomas Jefferson, a Virginia lawyer claimed that “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution,” (Bloomstein, 1968). The inclusion of this right in the U.S constitution supports Jefferson’s position and serves to protect the citizenry both in the present and future generations. This paper seeks to expound on why the founders protected the right to a jury trial in the American constitution . Secondly, it will explain the significance of this politically.
The functions of a jury are not only multiple but also varied. However, chiefly among them is the fact that a jury increases the responsibility of the administrative division to the popular resolve (Simon, 1975; Kalven et al., 1971 ) . This is achieved by decreasing seclusion of the judiciary and by restraining the likelihood of indiscriminate government action. Another vital role of a jury is that it boosts the moral authority as well as public approval of judicial verdicts. Further, individual dignity and responsibility are promoted by service on juries as citizens get educated about the government and its functions by bringing them into constant contact with it.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The responsibilities of a jury also include hearing evidence, deliberating impartially about the facts, and finally reaching a decision about relevant issues presented ( Devine et al., 2001) . Before being sworn in, members of a jury take an oath and swear that all activities will be done in accordance with the law . Up until the jury retires to deliberate on the facts before it, it is inert ( Burbank & Subrin, 2011) . This is because it neither takes notes nor asks questions during submissions by lawyers, witnesses, parties, or judges. The entire trial is led by a magistrate , but the jury remains the independent finder of facts, not the judge. The jury 's resolution of events is absolute, and typically cannot be queried or revoked by the judge at either the hearing or appellate level ( Devine et al., 2001; Bloomstein, 1968). These powers and roles of the jury were proclaimed in June 1776. The delegates of the Virginia Convention approved a pronouncement of human rights that comprised the following proclamation; “In controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other, and ought to be held sacred.” In the following month, representatives drawn from all the 13 colonies signed the Declaration of Independence. The declaration quoted the right to trial through a jury and at the time this right was exclusively granted to every British subject by Magna Carta in 1215. This came to be one of the principal reasons for fall out with the King and Mother England. During the time, Americans suspected of crimes against the kingdom were being held for an indefinite period on prison ships and after that extradited to England to stand trial. Many of those extradited were never seen again. Against this backdrop, the U.S Supreme Court has ruled that the right to a jury trial is an essential right for purposes of selective amalgamation into the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process Article, which addresses the jury ’s established resolve to avoid oppression (Bloomstein, 1968).
In the judicial system, the political significance of a jury cannot be overstated . In their definitive study of the American jury, Kalven et al. (1971) established that sometimes the jury acts in political ways. This applies when for instance the jury decides to punish police misconduct. While recognizing the significance of the civil jury, this obligation is, even more, moving in the criminal perspective. According to De Tocqueville (2003), "The jury is all a political institution, and it must be viewed in this light to be properly appreciated." It is stated that the master of society is the one who punishes infractions of the law. Thus, different and varied meanings can be drawn from the political discussions of this. Nevertheless, the jury trial is bound by rules and a set of practices. The judiciary and legislature are responsible for the formulation of the rules to ensure that they are legitimate constitutionally. These rules can also be referred to as the constitutive rules of a public form. In this context, therefore, jury trials are political processes since their establishment is undertaken by state institutions (Simon, 1975).
Since ancient times, jury service has developed a critical activity of citizenship. Being one of the core organizations in which ordinary citizens render a verdict, the jury plays a unique role in democracy. While voting, which is another principal activity of the citizenry, only requires mere expression of interest or inclination, findings on the jury need careful pondering from a neutral standpoint. Despite the seeming disjuncture between jury service and voting, historically the two have operated in concurrence. This is partly because only those believed capable of serving in the two fields have been bestowed full, and equivalent, citizen rights in democracies (Simon, 1975). However, in response to the question of whether or not a jury trial is a political event, numerous factors are put into consideration. Political debate at its best looks to the impending development and, if successful, allows people with diverse standpoints and interests to repeatedly reconstruct a joint project and their political character within that development. This it does without yielding their varied viewpoints. Additionally, political collation occurs devoid of the need to attain commonly binding models or rules, or a single commanding vision (Simon, 1975). Justice, in this case, is considered commutative. In this setting, juries act politically when they ultimately comprehend their task to be apprehensive of the reconstitution of a shared project and the formation of a public identity.
The importance of the right to trial by jury in the U.S is vital in ensuring that justice is served . This is by offering unbiased views and determination of the evidence presented during a case hearing in a court of law, thus promoting equality. Secondly, it plays a significant role in keeping the government in check. Thirdly, it is vital to America’s judicial system and democracy since it promotes public involvement. On the other hand, the political significance of a jury in the judiciary cannot be overemphasized . It should thus be viewed as a political institution for it to be comprehensively understood. Moreover, the task of a jury is apprehensive of the reconstitution of a shared project and the formation of a public identity. Thus juries are not only formed politically but also act so. In conclusion, therefore, juries in both criminal and civil cases reflect the democratic ideals envisioned in the U.S constitution.
References
Bloomstein, M. (1968). Verdict ; the jury system (1st Ed.). New York: Dodd, Mead.
Burbank, S. B., & Subrin, S. N. (2011). Litigation and democracy: restoring a realistic prospect of trial. Harv. CR-CLL Rev. , 46 , 399.
De Tocqueville, A. (2003). Democracy in America (Vol. 10). Regnery Publishing.
Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Dunford, B. B., Seying, R., & Pryce, J. (2001). Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychology, public policy, and law , 7 (3), 622.
Kalven, H., Zeisel, H., Callahan, T., & Ennis, P. (1971). The American jury (Vol. 71). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Simon, R. J. (1975). The jury system in America: a critical overview (p. 50). Sage Publications.
