The Monarch, the Jurists and the Dean of Harvard: Reason Curve and the Search for Average Ignorance in Criminal Trials

Abstract

Trial by jury does not enjoy constitutional protection under English law. The system has been under severe criticism, curtailment and considerable pressure in recent times, perhaps far more than in other countries. Critics have demanded reform or outright abolition and supporters have opposed the demands just as vehemently and any reform achieved has been piecemeal and reluctant. The furore has helped to galvanise robust and extensive intellectual debate on the subject. It has also spurned extensive academic research. Trial by jury remains central to a tiny but significant part of the Criminal Justice System. Yet, the jury, unlike other decision-making bodies, retains the power to deliver a verdict that is unique by its lack of an explanation. The issue does not sit comfortably with those who would have the system abolished or pray fair trials. The matter is traced to antiquity and the modern democracy struggles to articulate jury accountability. Lay participation in the criminal justice process in the form of a jury is a celebrated phenomenon throughout the common law jurisdictions. While not claiming credit for its origin, England, as the latent cradle of the modern jury, disseminated this mode of trial to a great part of the world through colonization. Yet, the English jury is badly marginalized for its intellectual ineptitude yet patently central to all criminal trials.This paper, the first to propose and investigate the relationship between the reason curve and the explained verdict in the English Criminal Justice System, explores the competence of the jury, as the medium of participatory democracy in the judicial system, to articulate an explanation for its verdict.