Jury Is a Body of People Gathered to Make a Decision

The number and strength of judges appointed by law and vary among countries, regions, and cases. The jury is very different in criminal law and civil law. In a criminal law, the foreign judges will decide what action should be prosecuted (official charged with the crime) and if the suspects are guilty. In many areas, the law will depend on a third and a jury will decide what punishment should be in the penalty phase. Generally, the size of the jury will be greater if a case is very serious.

In England and Wales, a jury consisting of 12 judges. Jury selection will each randomly selected from a list of selection for the location of the court. Voters who have registered in the age between 18 and 70 years will be selected for the jury, although there are many reasons for the inclusion of a jury. Which one is not chosen a selection of the jury did not understand English, as an example of a specific work of students, teachers, soldiers, members of parliament and became a member of the religious streams. In addition, each judge called the jury will probably get their service up to 12 months. Today, the Court will replace the loss of no more than 60 pounds per day in travel costs and subsistence level of a member of the jury.

The jury in criminal cases is the most important in the Crown Court where they will decide that the defendant is guilty or not guilty. If the jury can reach less than 1% of all criminal trial. This case, the criminal trial will speak of 97% in the Magistrates’ Court. The jury will be placed in civil cases. jury in civil cases can only be used in very limited circumstances, but where they are used they have a dual role. They will decide when students have been proving his case or not. So, when the jury has decided that the students had won the case, the jury will go to ensure that all the defendants and the amount of damages should be paid to the claimant. Juror may be dismissed by the judge if the judge feels the case involving confidential documents because the jury was not suitable for court judges.

Privacy rules to make public the jury is doing their job as best as possible, one of the mechanisms established principle of confidentiality of the jury. Jury secrecy rule has been accepted as a convention, in which the jury could not disclose what happened during the conference. Judge reminded the jury that they were obliged to keep any conversations during the conference ends. This rule has been affirmed several times to the jury that the media are often asked to disclose a study of and a jury trial. In 1968, the Criminal Law Revision Committee has stressed that the convention must consider the jury should continue to keep the secret room and observed the laws protecting the confidentiality of the jury room is not desired. However, there is something to emerge in the case of Attorney General v New statesman Nation Publishing Co. Ltd, in which a jury regardless of the account told the jury about a meeting held in the jury room for a high profile case of a politician. In this case, the Court of Appeal has ruled that, while the Attorney General is allowed to apply the law of contempt, but, not all exposures to the jury considered in contempt of court. Thus, the opinion that the defendant that this case will not affect the administrative judgments upon the case ended.

However, this view is not held by the government. Parliament had declared contempt of Court Act (CCA) 1981. S.8 that the act was to make it an offense to disclose information or collect a fact made of special or voice opinions and arguments that have been granted by the jury in their deliberation process. Performance in this case, the jury has done in the course of the trial or further processing to take action on offense do.

The Court of Appeal in R v Young was told that the ban is effective in preventing the court to investigate allegations of inappropriate behavior during consideration of the jury and effectively means that the court will ask for contempt of court if the alleged violation during the jury meeting. However, in the case that an investigation of alleged acts of contempt will not do like that happen outside the jury room when the jury did not officially consulted on the case. Crucially, too, given that the rule will apply only in the jury decides the case based on consensus and nothing else.

The main problem seems to be connected with the principle of jury secrecy is biasness potential impropriety by a jury for their review.

Jury bias is considered one of the biggest problems for people interested in justice. The judges will swear that they “will faithfully try the defendant and give the right decision and in accordance with the evidence.” The judges will be responsible in assisting the courts in upholding justice, but they will be open to allegations of jury biasness. The jury considered biased simply because the principle of jury secrecy. The fact of jury bias is that the collective and individual judges do not have to explain the reason or give permission for their decision. Bias can come in the form of either gender, such as racial, political or other opinion. One reason is the composition of the jury because the blame cannot really reflect the views of the community.

Composition of the jury part of the problem addressed by the government with the enactment of Law 2003 Criminal Law. Table 33 of this law makes it qualified for those associated with the administration of justice and ministers called the jury. However, this was seen as a substitutes one problem to another by a writer as the jury was against the backdrop of law may not be able to effectively fulfill their role on ‘guidance to behave as a private citizen’ issued by the chief judge and the [chief Bar 8].

Other forms of bias may come in the form of racial prejudice. In R v Mirza [9], House of Lords declared that s. 8 of the CCA does not apply to research allegations of irregularities in the discussion of the jury by the judge or the Court of Appeal as Lord Slynn said that “Parliament did not intend to fetter the power of the court to conduct research for the conference. It was held that it is appropriate for judges to investigate allegations of impropriety or biases are raised before or during the trial. This was rejected earlier in the principles of R v Young. The majority also suggests improvements to current practice in order to strengthen the system, resulting in the issuance of Practice Direction (Crown Court: A Guide to the jury) [10] the High Court. It states inter alia that the judge should be aware of their duty to bring the jury judging the behavior that caused concern to the attention of judges at the trial and not after the results have been submitted and the case concluded.

Next, Proposals for Reform. At the extreme end, there was a proposed elimination of the jury system. Most countries that adopt legal systems, particularly from the UK, such as Malaysia and Singapore have been to eliminate the jury system altogether. Yet, this augurs well for the British people because they have assumed that the jury system as a symbol of tradition and heritage as well as the last defense of citizens against the law of the jury system. This system also makes the country they had known of the legal process and increase public confidence in their involvement.