UK to abolish system of jury trials
ABOUT THE JURY SYSTEM
A jury is a group of individuals (jurors) summoned by the court to render an unbiased verdict (a factual result about a subject) or to impose a punishment or judgement. Each juror has sworn to follow the law. The jury system that was established in England during the Middle Ages provides the basis for the Anglo common law legal system. They are still widely employed in nations like Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and other nations with legal systems based on English legal traditions.
In India, jury trials arose as a result of British control. The Panchayat raj system was widely used by Indians in their communities, although it was not the same as a jury trial. Initially, the East India Company abstained from imposing English law's jury system. The jury system was established in a dual system of courts by the Britishers:
- The trial by jury was instituted in the Presidency Towns of Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras. For criminal proceedings, enforcing the jury system was required, but there was no such requirement for civil matters. A jury tried the Europeans, British, and, in some cases, Indians.
- There was no requirement to implement jury trials in Mofussils, the districts beyond the Presidency Towns. Company Courts were established, and Company executives adjudicated over native-related cases. Mofussil refers to any rural area or any rural district. For Britishers, the area outside of three East India Company capitals Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta.
The introduction of the Indian Penal Code in 1860 and the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure in 1861 coincided with the establishment of the Crown Raj in 1858. Trial by jury in criminal proceedings was now required in High Courts for Presidency Towns, although it was optional for Moffussils. The majority rule was used to determine whether the defendant should be acquitted or convicted. It stated that the conclusion reached by the majority will take precedence. The jury size was supposed to be between five and nine. Later, a Code was enacted that stipulated that the number of jurors be three for minor offences and between three and nine for serious offences .
A judge determines both the matter of responsibility and the number of damages in civil disputes. The jury's role in criminal proceedings has always been limited to assuming guilt, with punishment being left to the judges. In other states, however, the jury also decides the penalty within a defined legal range. In all jurisdictions which have preserved the death penalty, if a jury finds a person guilty of a capital offence, the jury decides or at least expresses an opinion on whether the death sentence should be inflicted. Several jurisdictions make the decisions on conviction and punishments at the same time, whereas others use a so-called retrial after a guilty verdict in capital cases. The jury then decides the sentence based on the pleas and evidence provided for and against the imposition of the death penalty in the second phase9 .
Bias and partiality are two major factors that have contributed to the deterioration of the jury system in India and across the world.
Factors that led to the jury’s decline are:
1. Jury’s biasness.
2. Emotional bond.
3. Bribe and threat offered by a party.
In India, the Jury system became an essential part but only until 1973. Because of the biasness of the Jury system, Indians were deprived of justice. K.M. Nanavati vs State of Maharashtra was the last case in India.
Finally, The Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 put an end to the jury system in India.
Comments