Common law and civil law are two opposite systems that influence the criminal justice regulations in the European countries, in the Eastern countries, in the United States, and in Australia. From this point, the criminal justice systems in such countries as the United Kingdom, France, and Kuwait can be discussed as impacted by different and often opposite principles, rules, and norms. In this context, the approaches to organising the jury trials in these countries are also different and rather specific. Furthermore, it is important to mention that the authorities in Kuwait only discuss the possibilities to use the jury system in the country, without implementing this model in the judicial system. While referring to the examples of criminal justice systems in the United Kingdom, France, and Kuwait, it is important to claim that jury trials should be used in the civil law, common law, and mixed systems more actively because the use of juries improves the court decision-making; increases the level of accountability; and promotes the principles of justice and democracy.
In order to concentrate on the advantages of jury trials for citizens and criminal justice systems in different countries, it is necessary to discuss the differences in the civil law and common law. Thus, the common law is typical for the United Kingdom where legal statutes are absent and precedents are taken into account. From this point, the main focus is on the jury’s verdict that follows the discussion of the case’s facts and on the judge’s final decision based on that verdict. The principles of the civil law that are observed and followed in France differ significantly from the norms of the common law because the main focus is on discussing the aspects of the case in the context of legal codes. In this situation, the role of the jury is rather limited, but the jury trial is still actively used in France to state justice in courts. The criminal justice system of Kuwait is even more complex because it is based on combining the elements of the common law typical for the United Kingdom with the elements of the French civil law in the context of focusing on the Islamic law. Although the jury system is not followed in the country, it is important to discuss the possible advantages of using the jury trial in Kuwait.
The first argument to support the idea that the jury system should be spread widely in the world countries is that the jury system is the key to the unbiased and effective court decision-making that depends on the possibility to evaluate the opinions of professionals in the sphere of law and criminal justice as well as on the visions of citizens. In the United Kingdom, the power of judges became partially reduced because of the principles of the common law and the necessity to focus on the juries’ opinions. From this point, the independence in decision-making is a guarantee of the just solution in the case. On the contrary, in Kuwait, judges are responsible for the decision-making process in courts, but there are still possibilities to implement the jury system in the country because it is based on the French judicial system. Dudzinski notes that “having a judge sit with citizen jurors actually improves the quality of their decision making”. The reason is that juries and judges receive the opportunity to exchange views and influence the trial equally. As a result, the final decision is more informed and supported with more arguments. In this case, the jury system has significant benefits while being effectively integrated into the traditional judicial system.
The focus on jury trials is also important to improve accountability that is discussed in relation to the judge and juries’ decisions. The researchers pay attention to the fact that it is ineffective to rely on decisions of only judges or only juries, but the source of the necessary accountability can be observed in the more efficient combination of the jury system with the principles of the common and civil law. It is important to state that the UK jury system is supported with the necessity of jury vetting in order to state that all jurors are responsible, respected, and not influenced by bias in their conclusions. According to Dudzinski, the issue of accountability is addressed because the jury system means that “citizens and judges bring their different backgrounds to deliberation, which can lead to a better informed ultimate decision”. From this point, juries and judges in the United Kingdom and France work more effectively when they know that their opinions can be evaluated by the other side. In this context, the juries perform as the alternative power to improve the quality of the judicial proceedings. While referring to the example of Kuwait, it is possible to note that the integration of the jury system in the country can be discussed as the tribute to the traditions, and this step is important while focusing on Shari’a as the Islamic law. In this context, the jury system can expand the possibility for citizens in Kuwait to refer to their traditions, opinions, and values. As a result, the jury system is significant to guarantee that all the aspects of the specific case are discussed in detail.
In addition, the jury system needs to be not only preserved but also spread in the world countries because jury trials are directly associated with the promotion of principles and ideas of justice and democracy in these countries. In France, the jury system is not as actively used as in the United Kingdom, but in this country, juries more often perform as protectors of the interests of citizens who control issues associated with focusing on human rights when the criminal statutes are applied to certain cases. In Kuwait, judges are often non-citizens, and it is important to use such tools as the jury trials in order follow the opinions of the Muslim community and to connect its values with the judicial system. From this perspective, the jurors are perceived as the representatives of the society whose task is to protect the community’s values and to guarantee the order in the society. The possibility to refer to the opinions of jurors means that the interests of the public and human rights will be met.
However, there are opponents to the jury system who are inclined to state that this approach is rather biased and risky because lay judges are expected to act and influence the court decision and sentence equally to professional judges. Researchers are inclined to note that there are many cases when juries make their decisions while demonstrating prejudice and the lack of knowledge in the sphere of law. In spite of the fact that these aspects are often discussed as the main barriers that can prevent the jury trials from spreading in many countries, it is also important to state that the effective choice of juries contributes to avoiding the possible bias in the court. In addition, there are many debiasing techniques to overcome the issue and to assist juries in discussing the case effectively. Thus, the possibility to listen to the opinions of persons who are not professionals in the field of law and criminal system and who are not interested in the results of the trial personally is important because the chance for being affected by prejudice decreases in contrast to the opinion promoted by the opponents of the jury system.
From this point, the examples of the jury systems in the United Kingdom and France demonstrate that there are many ways to implement the approach in the criminal justice system of the country. Furthermore, there are possibilities for mixing the features of different systems in order to implement them in the context of such country as Kuwait. It is important to note that the integration of the jury system in Kuwait is an important step to improving the use of the Islamic law in courts. As a result, while using jury systems in the contexts of the civil law and common law actively, it is possible to expect the increases in the quality of the overall criminal justice system and decisions; the increases in accountability associated with such concepts as justice and accuracy; and the accentuated focus on the human rights and liberties.
Bibliography
Bassiouni C, The Shari’a and Islamic Criminal Justice in Time of War and Peace (Cambridge University Press 2013).
‘British Nationals Arrested In Kuwait’ (Government UK, 2015) Web.
Dammer H and Albanese J, Comparative Criminal Justice Systems (Cengage Learning 2013).
Delmas-Marty M, European Criminal Procedures (Cambridge University Pres 2002).
Donovan J, Juries and the Transformation of Criminal Justice in France in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries (University of North Carolina Press 2010).
Dudzinski, J, ‘Justification for Juries: A Comparative Perspective on Models of Jury Composition’, (2013) 15 UILR 1615.
Feld L and Voigt S, ‘Economic growth and judicial independence: cross country evidence using a new set of indicators’ (2003) 19 EJPE 497.
Hans V, ‘Jury Systems around the World’, (2008) 4 ANN. REV. L. & SOC. SCI. 275.
‘Lay Participation in Legal Decision Making’ (2003) 25 LP 83.
Higginbotham P, ‘So Why Do We Call Them Trial Courts?’, (2002) 55 SMULR 1405.
Human Rights Act 1998.
International Business Publications, Kuwait Justice System and National Police Handbook (International Business Publications 2007).
International Constitutional Law. ‘Kuwait-Constitution’ (ICL 2011) Web.
Litan R, Verdict: Assessing the Civil Jury System (Brookings Institution Press, 2011).
Ma Y, ‘Lay Participation in Criminal Trials: A Comparative Perspective’ (1998) 8 ICJR 74.
Malsch M, Democracy in the Courts: Lay Participation in European Criminal Justice Systems (Ashgate Publishing 2009).
Roberson C and Das D, An Introduction to Comparative Legal Models of Criminal Justice (CRC Press 2008).
Roesch R and Zapf P, Forensic Psychology and Law (John Wiley & Sons, 2009).
Shauer F, ‘On the Supposed Jury-Dependence of Evidence Law’ (2006) UPLR 192.
Stevenson D, ‘The Function of Uncertainty within Jury Systems’ (2012) 19 GMLR 513.
Terrill R, World Criminal Justice Systems: A Comparative Survey (Routledge 2012).
Tyler T, Legitimacy and Criminal Justice: An International Perspective (Russell Sage Foundation 2007).
Vogler R, A World View of Criminal Justice (Ashgate Publishing 2005).
Voigt S, ‘The Effects of Lay Participation in Courts – A Cross-Country Analysis’ (2009) 25 EJPE 327.