The Value Of A Jury System

The Value of a Jury System

The Founders of our nation understood that no idea was more central to our Bill of Rights -- indeed, to government of the people, by the people, and for the people -- than the citizen jury. It was cherished not only as a bulwark against tyranny but also as an essential means of educating Americans in the habits and duties of citizenship. By enacting the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the Constitution, the Framers sought to install the right to trial by jury as a cornerstone of a free society.

The Framers of the Constitution felt that juries -- because they were composed of ordinary citizens and because they owed no financial allegiance to the government -- were indispensable to thwarting the excesses of powerful and overzealous government officials. The jury trial was the only right explicitly included in each of the state constitutions devised between 1776 and 1789 . And the criminal jury was one of few rights explicitly mentioned in the original federal constitution proposed by the Philadelphia Convention. Anti-federalists complained that the proposed constitution did not go far enough in protecting juries, and federalists eventually responded by enacting three constitutional amendments guaranteeing grand, petit, and civil juries. The need for juries was especially acute in criminal cases: A grand jury could block any prosecution it deemed unfounded or malicious, and a petit jury could likewise interpose itself on behalf of a defendant charged unfairly. The famous Zenger case in the 1730s dramatized the libertarian advantages of juries . When New York's royal government sought to stifle its newspaper critics through criminal prosecution, New York grand juries refused to indict, and a petit jury famously refused to convict .

But the Founders' vision of the jury went far beyond merely protecting defendants. The jury's democratic role was intertwined with other ideas enshrined in the Bill of Rights, including free speech and citizen militias. The jury was an essential democratic institution because it was a means by which citizens could engage in self-government. Nowhere else -- not even in the voting booth -- must Americans come together in person to deliberate over fundamental matters of justice . Jurors face a solemn obligation to overlook personal differences and prejudices to fairl...

... middle of paper ...

... jury service. If the jury system is to remain a central institution of democracy and citizenship, it must be refined. Jury trials must attract engaged and thoughtful citizens; the rules of the courts must treat jurors as sovereign, self-governing citizens rather than as children. To this end, we suggest a number of reforms. In many instances, these changes would require no new laws, but merely a willingness on the part of the courts to unleash the common sense of the ordinary citizen.

References

Alschuler, Albert, "Our faltering jury.," Public Interest, Jan 1996, pp. 28.

Culp, Douglass, "Do criminal juries let too many defendants loose?,"

Vol. 12, Birmingham Business Journal, 18 Dec 1995, pp. 15.

Curriden, Mark, "Jury reform.," Vol. 81, ABA Journal,

Nov 1995, pp. 72.

McElhaney, James, "Jury instructions.," Vol. 81,

ABA Journal, Nov 1995, pp. 91.

Savage, David., "A jury of your peers.," Vol. 81,

ABA Journal, Oct 1995, pp. 40.

Zobel, Hiller, "The jury on trial.," Current, Nov 1995,

pp. 8.