Editorial from The Guide	Editorials Archive

Why do we have juries? Given the complexity of the law, wouldn't it be wiser to have judges decide how the law does-- or doesn't-- apply to those accused of crime? Trials can be long and hard work; wouldn't it be better to have trained professionals perform the task of fact finder rather than disrupt the lives of a dozen citizens? Why indeed does the US Constitution repeatedly guarantee the right to a jury trial? Why do the constitutions of all fifty states similarly claim for their citizens the right of a trial by jury?

View our poll archive

Juries are a cornerstone of American jurisprudence because our Founders understood that independent juries are crucial to preventing political persecutions and capricious application of unjust laws. Juries, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, are to serve as a "valuable safeguard to liberty" and "the conscience of the community." If lawmakers pass grossly unfair laws, or prosecutors target individuals for political payback, juries serve as the citizenry's check against such abuse. Those who argue that juries must follow the absolute letter of the law do not appreciate this key role for juries. Trial by jury is a profoundly democratic institution with a unique power to curb political zealotry and influence public policy.

Indeed, independent juries-- those willing to vote their conscience-- have often performed valuable civic service. The end of the Prohibition Era-- America's first ill-fated "war on drugs"-- was hastened by juries' refusal to convict those accused of alcohol "crimes." Those protesting Jim Crow laws and the Vietnam war often counted on prosecutors not wanting to face a jury with charges that were technically valid, but ethically repulsive; indeed, trial by an independent jury makes non-violent civil disobedience an appropriately potent political tactic.

Some worry that juries will too readily substitute their opinions for the law. But history shows that juries are, in fact, reluctant to assert their power unless the abuse of prosecutorial discretion is egregious or the result of a guilty finding would be grossly unjust. (Some might object to jury independence by citing Southern juries' refusal to convict those accused of crimes against African Americans. But why scapegoat the juries? Racist police, prosecutors, and judges were equally culpable; the problem was systemic bigotry, not independent juries.)

Today, courts are clogged with vicitimless crimes, prisons are packed with small-time drug users, and the government is using fear to void the Bill of Rights. Jury service offers citizens one way to help rein in prosecutorial abuse, repudiate insane mandatory sentences, and protect constitutional liberties.

Our Founders understood that even in cases in which legislators and prosecutors and judges all agree (indeed, especially in those cases), the final verdict should rest with ordinary citizens performing their duty as freethinking, independent jurors. The next time you get a summons for jury duty, imagine serving on a case where someone is facing a mandatory sentence of years in prison for possession of a marijuana joint, or registration as a "sexually dangerous person" for offering a blowjob to a willing adult, or designation as a terrorist for protesting government policies. You will have the Constitutional obligation to decide if justice is served by voting guilty or not guilty. Do your duty.