The thesis explores the decline of jury trial in England and the United States of America. The jury represents the only form of direct lay participation whitin the judicial branch. The institute is used in less than one percent of trials, despite the fact that it is well known among the general public. The downfall of jury use in trials can be attributed to a wide range of factors. Its most frequently mentioned weaknesses are the longevity and financial wastefulness. Hence, more and more parties opt for alternative dispute resolutions, which often do not provide the equivalent indepth examination of the case. Due to the uncertainty of the outcome, the increase in the mandatory minimum sentencing and pressures from the prosecution side, the defendants in criminal trials are more inclined to accept a plea deal over facing a jury in trial. Likewise, parties in complex civil trials prefer to reach an agreement over letting a group of people, without necessary expertise, decide their faith. The role of judges and lawyers is also changing as, due to the abundance of cases, they are primarily driven by the desire to resolve the case as quickly as possible with minimum risk involved. Reforms, which will bring jury trials to the 21st century, are crucial for its revival. Through the discussion of the reasons for the decline and the study of possible reforms, I will try to confirm the thesis that the jury trial is worth preserving, since it is an irreplaceable way of lay participation and decision making, which ensures that the legal rules and decisions of the courts are in accordance with social norms and justice.
|
