Origin and Pros

King Henry II (1154- 1189) created a system of Assizes wherein 12 lawful and free men in the
neighborhood in a case concerning property and inheritance disputes would assemble and under
oath would determine and give the verdict. Though, unlike the modern system, these panels of
jury members were self-informing i.e. were supposed to act on previous knowledge.
Later, the system of self-informing juries gave way to the modern system of jury members
hearing the case at the trial. English juries played a crucial role in shielding the convicts from the
harsh and draconian legal provisions of the day. They punished less serious offenders with mild
punishments like whipping or branding instead of death penalty. This established their reputation
as a protector of individuals liberty.
Initially limited to white males with property, jury composition later became more inclusive and
diverse. Currently the right to trial by jury is normally understood as having a representative
cross-section of the community giving the verdict. This would include all the citizens of a
particular community regardless of their ethnicity or gender.
Trial by jury in criminal cases ensures that a persons liberty or life is only snatched from him if
the jury, composed of the fellow community members is convinced beyond reasonable doubt that
the man indeed committed the crime. It acts as a shield against the arbitrary exercise of power by
state in the capacity of the prosecution.
In civil cases, it ensures that the verdict delivered by the jury is the result of the case being
processed by the collective conscience of the community along with common sense.
Jury system is a vital part of the US democracy and, besides voting is the one of the most
important instances of peoples participation in the government. The system also helps the jurors
as they get exposed to the legal system and to the principles and provisions that govern their
land. It increases their legal awareness and acumen. Also it is process which involves the
screening of the jurors by both the sides and thus negates the possibility of bias.

Cons
It is difficult to find a representative jury that is also fair and impartial. Juries which are diverse
are thought to be a bit prejudicial in nature. Case in point is The legal system of S. Africa
wherein the jury system was abolished in 1969 because an all white jury was considered biased
and a mixed race jury could not be possible. Since juries are thought to have biases and
prejudices, it is difficult to determine the ideal composition of the jury which is a good
representative of the cross-section of the community as well as fair.

Also, the system relies upon general consensus and that in a diverse and heterogeneous society is
quite difficult as different groups and denominations can be have diverse opinions regarding the
issue.
Fairness of the trial can also be affected by the mandatory nature of the obligation to serve on the
jury. Often it burdens a citizen to compromise on his personal and professional life so that he can
participate in the system. The laws involved in a case can also be highly complicated and full of
intricacies. Thus, the verdict comes down to 12 probably unwilling people who have limited
understanding of the law to be applied in a case. This also increases the likelihood of the jurys
prejudices playing a role in their decision making.
Technological changes have also caused concern regarding the neutrality of the jury. These days
when the information is readily available and the jurors can easily access the historical and
contemporary information via news and media outlets etc. This can cause massive repercussions
and jeopardize the fairness of the process and its objective of neutrality.
Jury systems can also be taxing on both the jurors as well as the government. Often the jurors are
not compensated for their jobs that they are missing. State also has to pay in the form of travel,
lunch and living expenses of the jurors. The system also obliges the court to have deliberation
rooms, extra space for jurors etc. All this negative cost when compared with the little or no
benefit of the system is a major con.
At last, the major con is regarding the peoples involvement in the criminal justice system when
compared to the objective of keeping them there. The objective of trial by jury is to integrate
society decisions with that of criminal justice system, however since these members of the jury
themselves can be biased, prejudiced and legally ignorant, that raises a serious concern for the
outcome. In case of a wrong decision, the convict walking free or the innocent being charged in
both cases, the outcome jeopardizes with the criminal justice system and favors the societys
verdict over the objective of dispensation of justice.