The jury is made up of twelve people who participate in criminal and civil events to make decisions on questions of fact. These are the people who enjoy great dignity and respect in the society and in some cases have in-depth knowledge of various issues which warrants them to sit in court and contribute immensely in matters of law. In England the jury system has a history of around 800 years. The jury system was developed in England during those times called the dark ages and juries were required to personally investigate cases. This was largely an inquisitorial legal system in which the court was directly involved in conducting private investigations into cases before it. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay This approach is best as it helps the court to avoid relying on misrepresentations submitted by litigants, hence the need for other countries to adopt it and avoid cases of miscarriages of justice. Previously it was expected that there would have to be a unanimous verdict of guilty or not guilty. It had changed to allow a 10-2 majority verdict. If the jury cannot reach an agreement after a certain period, the judge in his discretion may allow such a verdict. The jury is called for service when a defendant pleads not guilty. If the plea is guilty, the judge will then deal with sentencing the defendant. This service is considered an important civic or public duty, the jury is expected to come with an open mind instead of rendering a verdict based on knowledge of events. In other words, the decisions made by the jury should not be influenced by anything other than the law and the evidence submitted in court. Individual members of the public are chosen at random to offer a service, a move intended to ensure that those chosen are not biased in the various legal matters presented before them. Jury service is regulated by the Juries Act 1974 and the Criminal Justice Act. Act 2003. This is a very good indicator that this is a process fully supported by law and, as such, must be taken seriously for fairness and pure justice to be achieved. In jury trials, the jury decides questions of fact and the judge decides questions of law. It has therefore become prudent for the courts to ensure that the jury's contributions are impartial and reflect a pure thought process. The jury must decide on the facts to determine someone's guilt or not guilt. Listen to the disputes and take note of the evidence and facts presented to assist in making a decision. Jurors add certainty to the law, i.e. the jury simply states that the accused is guilty or not guilty and does not give reasons. One cannot challenge the decision as this will be a recipe for doubts about the credibility of the thought process. thus rendering the justice system devoid of any kind of public trust. This is in line with the fact that to be respected, courts must have both the trust and approval of the general public, without which the administration of justice will be nothing but a futile exercise. The jury is able to provide social and psychological input where the rigidity and objectivity of the law cannot. This is due to the fact that in most cases the laws were formulated to curb specific behaviors based on the circumstances as they were then something which makes most of the current laws not only subjective but also rigid, thus incapable of addressing most of the current causes thatcontinue to characterize courtrooms. Juries have an obligation to be impartial and independent at all times as this is the only way through which they can engage their minds constructively without any pressure from external forces which could have a negative impact on the course of justice altogether. This aspect of independence and impartiality of the jury members was well established in Bushell's Case (1670). There are various reasons that make the role of the jury so indispensable in the justice system and they are directly linked to their status. of the mind or rather of psychology and include the following. The jury will provide a sympathetic (fairer) hearing, something that is vital to ensure you feel the impact the matter at hand is having on both parties and consequently be able to offer a valid and acceptable judgement. The jury has no prior knowledge of the case and can give an impartial decision. The fact that juries have nothing to do with the case and at the same time have no background information on the parties involved in the dispute makes it easy to believe their decisions on the basis that they are impartial and objective by all standards. When there is a majority of “rouge” jurors, the verdicts allow justice something that is crucial to ensuring that the final decision is put to a vote and, consequently, the majority will prevail. This eliminates any jurors who have prejudicial tendencies or who bring their own personal feelings to the trial. A retrial is available in cases which are tainted (ennobled) by Section 54 Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996. Such a process is important to ensure that proper justice is achieved to avoid incidents where one party goes home totally dissatisfied with the final conclusion. decision reached. This is also one of the best ways that the jury system in the UK has used to ensure that the courts have absolute public confidence at all times. The judge must explain the legal issues, something that is important to ensure that deliberations by jury members are always limited to the scope of jurisdiction and the correct interpretation of the law. This is also one of the best ways that the jury system has adopted to ensure that, to the extent that the influences of psychology cannot be eliminated in matters of justice, the provisions of the law have absolute precedence for a fair and just decision. adequately supported by the legal principles to be implemented as a whole. The jury is not qualified in matters of law and may not understand the terms used, something which continues to qualify why the panel or judges must take it upon themselves to explain questions of law before members of the jury are allowed to deliberate further on the matter and reach a justifiable decision regarding the issues in question. It has been argued that the jury is not intelligent enough to handle fact-finding in cases such as fraud and embezzlement and is not experienced enough to deal with complex cases where the evidence requires analytical skills, something which was highlighted in the landmark case of Aitken v Preston (1997) CA. Some cases are emotional cases and the jury may be tempted to return a guilty verdict based on personal feelings rather than a verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. This is however one of the major weaknesses of the jury system, hence the need for the court to ensure that the jury members called on board have the propensity to maintain at all times.