Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Jury Service and its role in Democracy and Civic Participation
The jury service is an important aspect of judicial processes that promotes both democracy and civic participation in the American society. Even though the services of the jury have dwindled over the years, the American jury system still remains a key part in promoting as well as supporting the public participation of American in relation to their civic rights. The institution was initiated at around 1836 by Alexis de Tocqueville, who had the idea that initialization of jury services of the American court system will lead to greater civic participation (Heberle, 2014). The discussion on the jury service will illustrate its importance in promoting democracy and facilitating civic participation.
During a court proceeding, the jury is tasked with the responsibility of determining whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. It is not within their constitutional mandate to decide the type of sentence that their client should face (Gastil et al, 2011). In order to come to the final decision, the jury does listen to all the evidence that are provided to the judge, they are hen tasked to decide what leads to the fact and the judge would only advise them on what is relevant to the court. A jury then takes their time and is at many times required to come up to an anonymous decision while a majority decision is always acceptable.
Today, while reflecting on the role played by jury trials towards promotion of civic participation by the public, many scholars tend to overlook how important they are (Bennet, 1998). People have continuously continued to question the Department of jury and thus required to be reminded that the jury just like any other institution plays a huge role in trying to promote and maintain the public participation of citizens in the civic affairs.
Many critics have complained about the small voter turnout of citizens during an election, even though there is no distinctive study done. According to Heberle (2014), citizens who have served on a criminal jury or had had their cases determined by a jury, were more motivated to participate in subsequent elections when they were called upon as compared to those members who have never participated in any jury-related platform.
In his book the jury and democracy, Gastil John takes into account court and voting records for almost 13500 people who have served in jury related platform in their lives (Gastil, 2010). The study wanted to test the hypothesis that serving on a jury can have the subsequent effect of changing the perspectives of citizens on how they view the government, the civic process and also for themselves. Of keen interest is that the study discovered that the experience of serving on a jury has the impact of increasing voters’ turn-up to those who previously neglected the electoral process. The study also discovered that the experience of serving on a jury also changed their participation in media, political arena and groups. They now report to follow actively on what goes around in the country and wanting as much as possible to be part of all political action in the country (Gastil, 2010). It is very clear that the jury system can influence and bring new ideas and vision into the democratic system just simply promoting the incorporation of a jury into our court systems.
When citizens are empowered to deliberate on their own and be allowed to make real decisions, then it has the impact of improving the democracy. The jury duties have the ability to making the common citizens who not interested in politics and also civic duties to be in a position to reevaluate them. It makes them to vote and also participate in all political making decisions (Gastil et al, 2011). The experience even makes them to start following and participating in public rallies and platforms. By just sitting down and deliberating with other members of the jury a plebeian now converts into a fully responsible citizen. The art of deliberation alone has the effect of making one feel proud to know that he or she is part of a justice process, something that makes them feel good from the inside.
When first called upon to be part of a jury many American, tend to avoid perceiving as a waste of their time. Many even go a great length, avoiding it completely. The idea of spending hours within a locked room deliberating the facts of a given case scares many. But as many come later on to realize, the experience is quite transformative and when they serve on a more frequent basis, then they begin to have a sense of satisfaction of fulfilling their constitutional rights (Dwyer, 2002). This has the effect of making to participate in all the fields of civic platform. One begins to feel more connected to the government and thus, is highly motivated towards being part of the government decision-making.
Psychologists do argue that, when a small group of different people drawn from different places does sit in a room to deliberating on a case, their individual perspectives being combined, they tend to have the feeling of a common purpose which leads to effective relationships (Gastil & Weiser, 2006). They have the priory of impacting on social capital, an aspect that draws them together, making them achieve a task that none of them could ever do on their own. The feeling is always empowering and transformative in nature as it leads to a future working together of the individuals.
The empowerment aspect of juries may explain why jurors emerge from court rooms feeling empowered and having self-satisfaction about life. They begin to appreciate the role played by different urgencies such as the government and the constitution all together (Gastil & Weiser, 2006). Any small part they find to actively participate in civic participation, they then act on it. Cleary here we can see that the jury does play an important role towards democratic participation.
On the other hand also, members of the public who have their cases determined by a public jury also seem to increase their participation in civic platforms. Let’s take a case where a citizen who was innocent from the very beginning start to fear that his mind end being found guilty as the case proceeds (Heberle, 2014). When the final stage draws near, the jury unanimously found the accused innocent. The defender will start to have belief in the judicial system and also his government. He or she will feel that he is living in a country where he is respected and that his rights are respected. Such an individual with such spirits always has a tendency on following what the government and will be highly motivated to participate in influencing his/her local community whenever possible. In times of election participation, it’s very rare to see such a person not turning out to be part of the electoral system (Gastil et al, 2011). The jury system helps the citizens to feel some sense of fairness and respect something that will act as a motivator for them.
Among the many duties that jurors are tasked with, they have managed to be a force of positive efforts for social changes as in the case when they have publicly come out and expressed all the details of public outcries on civil trials of environmental pollution by companies and also when they stood firm by their decision of refusing to convict the accused on the merits of conscience (Heberle, 2014). Such factors end up motivating others to accomplish their civic and constitutional rights we see many citizens now accepting the invitation to be part of a jury.
In conclusion, a jury plays an important role towards democracy and civic participation by the citizens. Its role in promoting the act of civic participation has been eminent since its first inception and continues to be seen now. It is a tool that needs to be utilized in order to nurture the spirit of democracy and civic participation among the American citizens.
References
Bennett, W. (1998). The UnCivic Culture: Communication, Identity, and the Rise of Lifestyle Politics. PS: Political Science & Politics, 31(04), 741-761.
Dwyer, W. (2002). In the hands of the people. New York: Thomas Dunne Books, Saint Martin’s Press.
Dzur, A. (2013). The Jury and Democracy: How Jury Deliberation Promotes Civic Engagement and Political Participation. New York: Oxford University Press
Gastil, J. (2010). The jury and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gastil, J., & Weiser, P. (2006). Jury Service as an Invitation to Citizenship: Assessing the Civic Value of Institutionalized Deliberation. Policy Studies Journal, 34 (4), 605-627.
Heberle, R. (2014). Punishment, participatory democracy and the jury. ContempPolit Theory, 13(2), e4-e6
Gastil, J.E., Deess, P., Weiser, P., Cindy, W. (2011). The jury and democracy: how jury deliberation promotes civic engagement and political participation. (2011). Choice Reviews Online, 48(10), 48-5966-48-5966.