Trial by Jury Term Paper

Trial by Jury

One of the most controversial issues today in the area of criminal justice is that of the right of all defendants to a trial by jury their peers. While most arguments are for or against this right, careful consideration of specific issues and kinds of cases suggests that trial by jury should not be abolished entirely, but should not be an absolute right. The idea of trial by jury can be retained in the American legal system through compromise and by limiting trial by jury to specific cases and courts. Having specialized courts for particular legal issues such as medical malpractice or other highly technical issues would remedy many of the problems that critics of the current system grapple with as legal scholars and moral individuals.

Often, as seen in the pairing of the essays of the noted defense attorney, media personality, and Harvard legal scholar Alan Dershowitz against the words of Christie Davies, the debate over the right to a trial by jury can be very polarized. Dershowitz calls juries "Unsung Heroes," stating that "Juries offer true justice" in keeping with the populist and democratic spirit of America. Christie Davies's "Trial by Jury Should Be Abolished" takes the contrary view, calling the right to trial by jury an outdated system that was viable only in eras of less complicated legal and technical questions, and in a more homogeneous America.

However, the polarized views of Dershowitz and Davies must be given more consideration in the context of actual specifics of the jury system.Historically, it is important to remember that when trial by jury was introduced in England to replace trial by ordeal, "it was unquestionably an improvement. Trial by jury enjoyed high favor in the enlightened world through the 18th century and was passed from England to the United States. And there it still rests in our Constitution's Sixth and Seventh amendments."(Grenier, 1994) But, Davies and Richard Grenier both point out that "during the last decade ignorant and often quite silly jurors have dished out awards of millions and even billions of dollars" in medical malpractice cases under questionable circumstances, more out of emotional sympathy than legal compliance with their duty as citizens or respect for medical facts and data. (Grenier, 1994)

Even supporters of the jury system differ in their opinion of the ability of juries to nullify laws they find unfair. Robert Anton Wilson in "Jury Nullification: Freedom's Last Chance," recommends that a common man or woman should contest bad laws in the justice system to preserve democracy. Mark S. Pulliam counters in "Jury Nullification Should Not Be Allowed" that nullification gives too much power to individuals without a legal background who may be swayed by emotion rather than legal logic. Thus, a balance must be struck between democracy and legal formalities in the jury system. With this in mind,….....