1

Christopher Fischer
Prof. Jamie McBeth-Smith
ENGL 1010-034
April 27, 2016
Position Synthesis: Should we abolish jury trials?
Lets be honest, the last time you saw a not-guilty verdict in the news for a person the
country believed to be guilty, you wondered, how did they mess that up? Among the many
controversial court cases in our history, your feelings of doubt are most likely seen in the murder
cases for O.J. Simpson and Casey Anthony. Dont worry youre not alone in this, many others,
including myself, completely agree. It happens all too often in these high profile cases, the jury
got it wrong. But how could such a scrutinized system fail so miserably?
Of the many parts that make up our court system, it seems that the weak-link is a jury
selected by attorneys. The process of jury selection is called, voir dire. In voir dire, the judge
and attorneys for both sides ask potential jurors questions to determine if they are competent and
suitable to serve in the case. Each attorney attempts to select jurors that will help them win.
However, the caliber of people that these attorneys select varies depending on what side of the
case they are on, prosecution or defense.
The prosecution attorney's love to choose people who show signs of an ability to think
logically and do not sway easily to emotion. Inversely, the defense, prefers jurors with
substandard intellectual prowess that easily succumb to the emotional state of the case and the
defendant.

Another problem with the current jury system is that most jurors are not familiar enough
with our legal system. Some court cases are so complicated that only those with proper training
are able to articulate its complexities. Leaving the jury in the dark to make a decision they may
not be properly trained to make.
In discussions of the general public's lack of legal knowledge, one issue has been whether
or not they should be trained or held to standards. One the one hand, Fuchs and Lepinskas argue
that general public juries be replaced with experts. On the other hand; Gittos, Lambourne, and
Wells, contend that the public is capable of sitting on jury duty with little to no training. The
jury's "woeful lack of intellectual endowment" (Fuchs) should not be a determining factor in
their courtroom duties. Rather, it is their ability to ask questions and scrutinize the process for
which they are participating in. I completely agree with Gittos when he stated "These are social
questions, which are answered simply by recourse to ones own experience. They are not the
kind of questions you can train people to answer." I believe he is trying to say that every case is
different and each jury pool would need to be trained for that specific case. Furthermore, "When
you consider the nature of the judgment being made by jurors in criminal cases, the question as
to whether someone could be vetted for their ability to be a juror seems redundant" (Gittos).
As previously stated, Fuchs and Lepinskas believe that juror legal knowledge is not
sufficient enough to understand court cases in todays society. When it comes to the topic of
replacing juries with subject matter experts, Erin Fuchs and Ronald Lepinskas have similar
beliefs. Fuchs simply stated her solution by replacing them with a panel of subject matter
experts. While Lepinskas believes that Criminal juries reinforce our democracy and check the
power of state. Even though the complexities of civil cases fly over the heads of common
citizens, he believes they should still be used in criminal cases. On this subject, Lepinskas and

Fuchs make compelling and logical assertions for their conclusions. However, I believe that they
have failed to see why the jury system was created.
Jury trials were initially created to judge a defendant by his or her peers. Gittos believes
in this system and shows why its important by his statement A jurors ability to judge a fellow
citizens guilt arises in the virtue of their own experience of the world. It is not the jurys sole
responsibility to understand evidence presented before them. They are there to judge the
defendant based upon a moral compass developed through having been a fellow member of
society (Gittos). According to Gittos, abolishing a system that was created as a vital safeguard
to the powers of the state would be criminal and deny us, the citizenry, the right to dictate the
morals of the society we live in. In the conclusion of Lepinskass article he states our nations
citizenry is highly specialized. He is saying at this time in our nation a jury of true peers
would need 12 accountants to judge an accounting fraud case. Additionally, that our society has
undergone drastic changes since its formation and now requires a more specialized system to
keep up.
In America today, over 15 million people are called to serve jury duty each year. Of this
15 million only 5 million actually show up to fulfill their civic duty. According to Mr.
Lambourne, many who choose to show up lie and are excused by showing bias towards the case.
For example, this would be someone who falsifies their background in a drunk driving case and
claims that a loved one was killed in such an accident. When nothing of the sort had actually
happened to them. At that time, they would be cut a check for coming in and go home.
Many more dodge jury duty by simply not showing up or finding a way to be excused
before participating in voir dire. According to a poll in 2004 by ABA/Harris Americans have a
profound belief and trust in the jury system (Wells). Additionally, Seventy-five percent of

those polled rejected the notion that jury duty is a burden to be avoided, and 58 percent view jury
service as a privilege and a responsibility they look forward to fulfilling (Wells). I find this
hard to believe because two-thirds of those chosen fail to show up when it is their turn. What
does that say about our society? Where citizens will show faith in a system while completing a
poll but, when they are called to serve squirm their way out. Fuchs states that many choose not to
show up because they are worried about losing income. Even though the court provides you
with a small check, it is not sufficient compensation for a normal days work. Many have said
The loss wouldnt have meant financial ruin (Fuchs) however, it would put an unnecessary
strain on their family. This is because most employers do not pay you while serving jury duty.
It was revealed in my discussion with Chad Lambourne that he blames attorneys for a
lack of diversity in the jury pool. During my time in the Navy I learned having a wider variety
of people working on a problem gives better results. However, this is not how a jury is actually
selected. In the process of jury selection, voir dire, defense attorneys purposely choose less
intelligent jurors who may rely on their emotions to make decisions. Mr. Lambourne suggests
that we create a system of standards that all potential jury members must meet. This solution is
also seen in Thomas Wells article; Bar Association looks at revamping jury system. The Bar
Association is taking it a little further and looking to create standards not for potential jurors but
for court administrators and judges themselves. It is their belief that abolishing the system to
keep up with changes in society is not necessary.
In conclusion, then, as I have suggested earlier, those looking to replace juries with
experts are not seeing the big picture. Their assertions that the public is not intelligent enough to
serve in jury duty is moot. Where Fuchs and Lepinskas provide ample evidence that jurys be
replaced with experts, Lambourne, Gittos, and Wells statements on the subject convince me that

the public is capable to serve their civic duty. However, I cannot agree with letting them serve
without any type of training or standards. The type of training and standards I would look at
implementing would be generalized. Additionally, that this training work to build public
understanding around the world of the importance of the rule of law in democratic society
(Wells). If jury pools were abolished and replaced with experts, it would place enormous power
in the hands of state officials (Gittos) and deny us the ability to dictate the morals of the
society we live in (Gittos). Furthermore, determining guilt should not be a matter of expertise
or a profession.

Works Cited
Fuchs, Erin. "This Is Why Juries Shouldn't Decide Court Cases." Business
Insider. Business Insider, 03 July 2014. Web. 31 March 2016.
Gittos, Luke. "Abolishing the jury system would be criminal." Spiked. Spiked Magazine, 25
February 2013. Web. 7 April 2016.
Lambourne, Chad. Personal interview. 26 March 2016.
Lepinskas, Ronald M. "Abolishing the Civil Jury System: Jury Members May Be in over Their
Heads." Editorial. Chicago Tribune. Chicago Tribune, 3 Mar. 2002. Web. 31 March 2016.
Wells, Thomas H Jr. "Bar Association looks at revamping jury system." Birmingham Business
Journal. Birmingham Business Journal, 09 December 2014. Web. 31 March 2016.