Court advantages disadvantages and reforms essay

In 1956 Lord Devlin professed that juries are ‘the lamp that demonstrates that freedom lives’. Evaluate the precision of this statement with regard to the advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury, the alternatives readily available and any kind of reforms which were introduced or recommended. You are to create an article as follows

Remember: This is just a sample from a fellow student. Your time is important. Let us write you an essay from scratch

Seriously evaluate pros and cons the disputes for and against trial by court Discuss virtually any reforms that have been proposed or introduced and evaluate these kinds of reforms pros and cons

This composition will evaluate the argument for and against the jury program, discuss and evaluate suggested or latest reforms towards the jury system in England and Wales.

Finally, it will consider the alternatives to the current court system. Over one thousand years the court system has been in place in the legal program, which to some can seem strange to ask twelves random individuals with no schooling or encounter in this field to decide somebody else’s fate. Initially the use of the jury was providing local know-how and behaving more like witnesses rather than the decision makers that they are seen as today.

Vehicle independent assessors of selecting fact. One particular advantage of trial by court is public confidence. A jury is regarded as by most as one of the principles of a democratic society and the right to always be tried by simply our peers has been maintained many famous judges. Additionally, there are new certification for court service allowing almost everyone to be able to serve over a jury and creating a combination section of society.

The use of a court is very outdated and still takes place in society today displaying that it should be a fair way to judge the accused and this society will need to have confidence in the jury system. Another significant factor in the huge benefits of having a jury is usually jury collateral. The vast majority of people who find themselves selected to get jury service are not legal experts and also have no previous case knowledge, they do not have to follow earlier cases or acts of parliament when deciding whether or not a person is guilt ridden. A further benefit of jury collateral is not having to give reasons for the verdict that they have reached. It was put into place when ever Edward Bushell appealed against his treatment as a juror and this individual won the ideal for the jury to come to their own decision even if thejudge does not agree (Bushell’s circumstance 1670). Third, the court system is seen to be a system of rights, meaning that a jury makes the legal system more open up.

This is because associates of society are taking portion in a vital role helping to make the process community. A positive consequence of having lay people in court is that the law will probably be kept much clearer because the majority of issues said will have to be clearly explained to the court and it also shows the defendant to be able to understand the case too. Alternatively, the court deliberate in private , nor have to provide any factors as to why they have come to their decision, recommending that the legal system is certainly not fully open up, unlike all judges who have to clarify their thinking for a thinking they have made and if they make any errors it is in that case known by others and is appealed against. A final level of advantages of juries can be impartiality. A jury should be impartial as a result of way that they are selected. The the jury being chosen is randomly and should build a cross part of society where people almost all have different skills and opinions resulting in virtually any biases being cancelled out. Having discussed the advantages of obtaining a jury, it is important to also go over the limitations as well.

A disadvantage of any jury would be perverse decisions. Earlier in the essay when discussing the huge benefits of a court, jury collateral was chatted about. However , this can become seen as a downside because for some it is unjustified and unhelpful ? awkward ? obstructive ? uncooperative. An example of this would be the case R v Randle and Pottle (1991). In which the defendants were charged with helping a spy get away from penitentiary however this kind of did not happen until it was wrote about in a book twenty five years afterwards. The court acquitted the defendants and it was thought that they can did that as a result of length of time it had been since the offence and the moments of the criminal prosecution. Although secrecy can be seen because an advantage to safeguard jurors by stresses of others, it can be regarded a disadvantage also. The reason for the reason is , all of the deliberating is completed for yourself there is no technique of anybody knowing if the jury did the truth is fully understand the case. There is also no chance of knowing if the jury have come to the verdict that they have chosen for all of the correct causes.

Bias is likewise another drawback although some persons might feel that a court cannot be prejudiced because there are 14 people on the other hand there can easily still be misjudgment which can then simply affect the consensus. An example can be that some people are biasedtowards the police which is why people with certain criminal croyance are disqualified from sitting on a jury. Another model would be Sander v United Kingdom (2000) 1 juror wrote a notice to the assess explaining that some of the other jurors have been making hurtful remarks. The judge in that case asked the jury to ‘search their very own consciences’ as well as the next day this individual received two letters, a single signed simply by all of the jurors stating that there had been no racist remarks plus the second page from merely one juror describing that he had been anybody making the racist comedies. Despite all the letters and the case was allowed to continue with the same jury. Nevertheless , the Euro Court of Human Rights held that under these circumstances the judge needs to have discharged the jury because there was a potential risk of racial bias.

All the advantages and disadvantages make an important contribution to our comprehension of our court system and whether or not they are the best way to try defendants but despite all of the down sides with the court system it truly is still used today which suggests that they has to be an advantage rather than a disadvantage. Despite the criticisms of getting a court the demand for them remains largely undiminished and the best process offered. Nevertheless, there may be some other alternatives to having a jury. You might be trial by a solitary judge, this method is mainly found in civil court cases also, it is known for becoming a fairer, even more predictable end result. Even so, there isn’t much open public confidence in the use of a trial by single judge to decide significant criminal instances. This is because judges can become case hardened and prosecution oriented.

They are also regarded as from incredibly elite qualification and may not have very much understanding of defendants and their backgrounds. Another option might be a panel of judges just like in other Europe where three to five judges sit on a panel together. It looks like a better idea having a -panel of idol judges rather than a single judge because the different sights would balance but the fact still remains that they can become case hard, prosecution minded and result from an elite backdrop. Having a panel of idol judges would be expensive compared to a jury wherever they are not paid. In Scandinavian countries they have a program where a judge sits with two lay people. This does appear like it would be recommended as the judge could provide legal expertise plus the lay people offer a better view of society than the judge since it has already been founded that judges are not a cross area of society, they may be muchmore top-notch.

There have been many reforms and proposals of reforms within the jury system. Some of the reforms are becoming drawn up to cut the costs of courtroom cases as it could conserve around thirty million pounds per year. ‘Juries in small theft instances, assaults, burglaries, some medication offences, legal damage instances and some driving a car cases will be scrapped under the reforms, The changing times reported’. It seems like there is a need for some reforms to be manufactured on the current system for it to cope with modern crimes by keeping justice updated.

Overall, having trial by jury to get a numerous volume of years suggests that it really is successful and must be reasonable to keep it. Approving there are various other alternatives that have been recommended to the jury program there have not been much better options right now to decide the fate of defendants. It seems like likely that trial by simply jury is far more of an advantage to the public than a downside as described earlier the fact that public prefer to be tried out by everyone rather than the ones from an elite backdrop, so does this suggest that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? It would appear that trial by simply jury will still continue for many years and can remain to get an asset to society.


Martin T. (2011) ‘OCR Law pertaining to AS’ Second Ed

Popular cases: Bushel’s case in 1670 ” Brightside. 2015. Famous instances: Bushel’s case in 1670 ” Brightside. [ONLINE] Available at: [Accessed 29 January 2015].

Trial by jury faces axe in thousands of instances as process of law try to cut costs | Daily Mail Online. 2015. Trial by court faces axe in 1000s of cases because courts make an effort to cut costs | Daily Postal mail Online. [ONLINE] Available at: [Accessed 29 January 2015].


Related essay