What Happened to Trial by JuryDating back at least to the time of Socrates, some early societies decided
that certain disputes, such as whether a person committed a particular crime, should be heard by a group of citizens. Several
centuries later, trial by jury was
introduced to England, where it became a fundamental feature of the
legal system, checking the government and involving citizens in decision-making. Juries decided whether
defendants would be tried on crimes,
determined whether the accused defendants were guilty, and resolved monetary disputes.
While the American colonies eventually cast off England's rule, its legal tradition of the jury
persisted. The United States Constitution instructed a grand jury to decide whether criminal cases
proceeded, required a jury to try all
crimes, except impeachment, and provided
for juries in civil cases as well.
Yet, in the US today, grand juries often are not convened, and juries
decide less than 4% of criminal cases and less than 1% of civil cases filed in court. That's at the same
time as jury systems in other countries are growing.
So what happened in the US? Part of the story lies in how the Supreme Court
has interpreted the Constitution.
It is permitted plea bargaining, which now occurs in almost every criminal
case. The way it works is the
prosecutor presents the accused with a decision of whether to plead
guilty. If they accept the plea,
the case will not go in front of a
jury, but they will receive a shorter prison sentence than they'd get if a jury did convict them. The
risk of a much greater prison sentence after a trial can frighten even an innocent defendant into taking a
plea. Between the 19th century and the 21st century, the proportion of guilty pleas has increased from around 20% to 90%, and the numbers continue
to grow.
The Supreme Court has permitted the
use of another procedure that interferes
with the jury called summary
judgment. Using summary judgment, judges can decide that civil trials
are unnecessary if the people who sue have insufficient evidence. This is intended only for cases where no
reasonable jury would disagree. That is a difficult thing to determine, yet
usage of summary judgment has
stretched to the point where some would argue it is being abused.
For instance, judges grant fully,
or in part, over 70% of employers' requests to dismiss employment discrimination
cases. In other cases, both the person who sues and the person who
defends forgo their right to go
to court, instead resolving their
dispute through a professional arbitrator. These are generally lawyers,
professors, or former judges. Arbitration can be a smart decision by both
parties to avoid the requirements
of a trial in court, but it is often agreed to unwittingly when people sign
contracts like employment applications
and consumer agreements. That
can become a problem.
For example, some arbitrators may
be biased towards the companies that give them cases. These are just
some of the ways in which juries have disappeared. But could the disappearance
of juries be a good thing? Well, juries are not perfect. They are costly,
time-consuming, and may make errors.
And they are not always necessary, like when people can simply agree to settle their disputes. But juries
have their advantages. When properly selected, jurors are more representative
of the general population and do
not have the same incentives as prosecutors, legislators, or judges seeking reelection or promotion.
The founders of the United States trusted
in the wisdom of impartial groups of citizens to check the power of all
three branches of government. And the jury trial itself has given ordinary
citizens a central role in upholding the social fabric. So will the jury system
in the U.S. survive into the future?