Do we need a jury system?

By Atty. Rita Linda V. Jimeno

Sometimes, foreigners who have stayed in our country some years begin to think they
know more than we do about solving the ills of this nation. It is true we are critical of the
people running our government. Some groups or movements, in fact, overdo it by
fiscalizing on a full-time basis. Yet, it is simply irritating to hear a non-Filipino speak
with arrogance and condescension about our systems without laying down a clear basis.
This is about my daughter’s brush with such a non-Filipino.

My daughter who is in fourth year law at the University of the Philippines had an
argument on the phone with an American guy who is married to my daughter’s best
friend. The argument left her unnerved and fuming. I gathered from her that the
American fellow was insisting that our judicial system was all wrong because we did not
adopt the jury system. He was insisting that the jury system would totally eliminate
corruption and injustice. This prompted my daughter to retort with conviction her views
about why the jury system would not necessarily work in this country. As I listened to her
argue on the phone, I realized that her thoughts made sense and that indeed we may be far
better off without a jury system.

Here are her arguments, in a nutshell. Foremost are the financial constraints. To enforce
the jury system, there is a need to provide the jurors with lodging, meals, and an
allowance the entire time that they are serving. Given the already modest salaries that
judges and other court employees are receiving, a budget for jury members, numbering
12, is clearly unrealistic.

Then there is the issue of even greater delay in the disposition of cases because of the
selection process. In the jury system, potential jury members are selected through voter
registration and drivers’ license lists. A form is sent to prospective jurors to pre-qualify
them by asking them to answer questions about citizenship, disabilities, ability to
understand the English language, and whether they have conditions that would excuse
them from being a juror. If they are deemed qualified, summons is issued to them. Once
they appear in Court, they have to earn the approval of both lawyers for the opposing
parties. This process alone takes time because it rarely happens that all the potential
jurors are accepted the first time around. Only when the jury is complete can the trial
commence.

In a recent Massachusetts case, a judge dismissed a juror for discussing the news
coverage of a case involving a man on trial, in violation of the rule that jurors should not
have access to media to insulate them from outside influence. The whole process of jury
selection had to start all over again before trial could begin. This also happens when the
jury is unable to arrive at a unanimous decision, clearly setting back the resolution of the
case.
Then there are cultural difficulties. In most countries, people consider it their civic
obligation to serve their jury duty. They take pride in it, and try to carry out this duty as
best as possible. In the Philippines, however, the maturity of most people toward civic
responsibility is still wanting in many ways. Consider how difficult it is to get witnesses
to appear in court for cases where they have no personal stakes. Imagine how much more
difficult it would be to require disinterested citizens to leave their jobs and their families
in order to sit as a juror for as long as it takes to finish a case.

If we had a jury system, every citizen may, at one time or another, be called upon to
render jury duty. But how do we address the fact that a fairly large segment of our
population has not completed college education? Court proceedings are done in English.
Too, legal concepts are not easy to grasp.

The jury then becomes prey to emotional appeals and to grandstanding by lawyers who
have mastered the art of theatrics.

If you’ve ever seen a movie or a show about lawyers, you will recall that their arguments
before a jury are mostly appeals to sympathy, or are misleading and irrational. Rarely do
they base their arguments on law. This is hardly surprising because the jury is composed
of laymen, people who often do not have a background whatsoever on the vast intricacies
of the law. And so it is easier to sway their decisions based on grandstanding and fancy
talk, rather than on the strength of the evidence presented or the application of the law to
the case.

In contrast, in our judicial system, a judge is the one who hears the cases and the one who
writes the decisions. Our Rules of Court require that decisions of judges must clearly
state the facts and the law applicable to the case. Decisions without a legal basis may be
overturned and nullified by a higher court.

Add to this the coming into play of personal biases, belief systems, and prejudices of
jurors who are wanting in legal training. They come into the courtroom with their own
pre-programmed set of beliefs, stereotypes, and biases. They will judge the parties based
on their clothing, their appearance, the way they talk and act, or their dislike toward the
counsel. More often than not, these personal opinions and prejudices influence their
decisions regardless of the law and the evidence presented. Judges do have their personal
belief systems and biases, too, but these are tempered by their training in the legal
profession and the need for them to state the legal bases for their decisions in writing.

On the issue that judges are more prone to bribery than a jury, this is not necessarily true.
In fact, the reverse may be truer. While judges may be bribed, and some argue, much
easier because a party only has to deal with one person, the danger exists even more with
regard to jurors because they have nothing to lose. Their jury duty is temporary and they
have jobs to go back to. Judges, on the other hand, may be removed from their respected
seats in court, and deprived of their retirement and other benefits. Further, it is more
difficult to keep an eye on each and every juror, than it is to monitor one judge presiding
over a case.
Lastly, my daughter argued, the jury system was NOT foolproof. In the US, frivolous
damage lawsuits are rampant because it is so easy to be awarded damages by the jury.
Think of the infamous McDonald’s coffee case, wherein the jury awarded $2.9 million to
a woman who burned herself with hot coffee which she held between her thighs in the car
while it was parked.

Think also of the O.J. Simpson case, where, despite glaring evidence, O.J. Simpson was
acquitted of the murder of two people, one of whom was his wife. Then there was the
Rodney King case where the mostly white jury found the white police officers not guilty
even though they were caught on tape kicking and beating the African-American cab
driver with their clubs and batons.

Ours may not be a perfect judicial system. And it is true that there is still much room for
reform and improvement in the judiciary. But adopting a system clearly not suited to our
own may yield even bigger disasters than what it seeks to solve.

And, as to the American fellow insisting that we adopt the jury system, he better do his
homework before engaging Filipinos in debate what is best for us.

http://leadphil.blogspot.com/2009/10/do-we-need-to-implement-jury-system-of.html

Advantages Disadvantages

Provides certainty, no retrial (subject to On acquittal there can be no retrial

recent reforms but only for serious (subject to recent reforms but only for
crimes). serious crimes).

Retrial available in tainted cases Jury nobbling believed to be frequent

(nobbling) Section 54 Criminal Procedure
and Investigation Act 1996.
Section 51 Criminal Justice & Public
Order Act 1994 creates offence to
intimidate or threaten to harm a juror.
resulting in wrongful acquittals.
No enquiry allowed into jury deliberations
after verdict, even if juror alleges racial or
any other type of bias or wrongdoing by
the jury.

Prosecution and defence "challenges" Jury vetting is against the principle of

correct the problems caused by random random selection.
selection.

95% of cases dealt with by magistrates, Expense of jury trial.

so not a great cost as a percentage spent
of the CJ system. Defendants manipulate the system.

Public acceptability of jury decisions.

Perverse verdicts enjoy public respect. Perverse verdicts undermine the principle
of justice, and the rule of law. (and are
Avoiding unjust law or precedents
without breaking them.
Perverse jury verdicts can provide a
"criminal equity".
Involvement of lay people. Trial by peers.
Juries include many ethnic minorities as
a percentage of the whole population
(11.5% are non-white, British - 2001
census), which is wrongly thought to be
higher.
Independent of the executive and the
judiciary.
With 12 people any bias is likely to be
cancelled out
Common sense; judge strength of
witnesses' evidence themselves.
Apply common values, e.g. what is
"dishonest"
Majority verdicts allow justice when there
is a 'rogue' juror.
Many judges believe jurors usually return
the right verdict, very few appeals from
jury verdicts.
High correlation in USA studies of
jury/judge verdicts.
actually very rare)
Defying the will of the democratically
elected legislature.
Juries return the wrong verdict - series of
miscarriages of justice undermine
confidence.
Jurors may be tempted to reach a quick
verdict in order to get it over with and go
home.
Law on jury secrecy could allow the
innocent to remain convicted rather than
make reasonable enquiries into how
verdict was obtained (R v Mirza)
Selection of juries to obtain racial mix not
allowed.
Ethnic minorities often do not register to
vote.
Ethnic minorities do not have the
language skills to be effective jurors.
Can be biased against one party or the
other.
Local prejudice can be a problem in
particularly emotive cases Litchfield
moved to Exeter for this reason.
Are mislead by barristers' techniques as
to strength of evidence.
Judge has to explain legal matters.
Majority verdicts can convict when there
is doubt which should have been given to
the defendant.
Easily influenced by impressive barristers,
or the judge.
Juries not required to give reasons for
verdicts.
Judge can correct any unfairness of the
array.
Provide a barometer of public opinion.
Ordinary honest citizens applying local
knowledge and values.
Reputed to do their best according to the
law.
Civic duty a rare opportunity for
citizenship
Efficient system, with 800 years of
success.
Character and honesty can be judged by
ordinary persons, it does not require
legal skills.
Public confidence.
Defendants can elect jury trial.
Juries do understand the burden of proof,
and lower it in paedophile cases and child
murders.
Insufficient intellect. Cannot follow
complicated tax or fraud cases. Note:
can be judge-only trial in some cases.
Inconsistencies throughout the country.
Young jurors no life experience.
Jury members can have a string of
convictions not serious enough to
disqualify.
Also, disqualified jurors still find their way
into the jury box.
Role of the jury is merely symbolic of
public involvement.
Can become bored during the trial.
Inconvenience and financial loss to jurors.
Slow. Some trials e.g. fraud can take
many weeks or months.
Lack of research defies assessment.
Horrific cases can seriously affect jurors
who have to sit through harrowing
evidence.
The existence of juries distract from real
problems in the criminal justice system
people believe their existence means the
CJ system is functioning well.
Many serious cases do not provide for
jury trial, for example drink driving.
There is no choice but jury trial in
indictable offences, summary trial cannot
be elected.
Juries do not understand the burden of
proof.