Preserving the Right to Trial by Jury

Our jury system has many advantages. A jury isin some quarters of American society, the right to a
made up of local citizens, men and women from thetrial by jury is under siege. In addition to the
community, who are able to evaluate cases based oncontroversial "wartime" extraordinary powers
community standards. The composition of the jury isinvested in the Bush Administration's policies toward
not known in advance, so that the exertion of unduedetainees, designating a person as an "unlawful
influence is rendered less likely. Jurors cannot be paidcombatant" changes the rules pertaining to jury trials,
by either side, so that they can be consideredmaking them subject to military tribunals in place of
relatively impartial. Jurors complete their service duringjuries. Other groups hoisting agendas advocate for
the trial process and subsequently return to theirthe elimination of the right to trial by jury in the
private lives, so that ongoing efforts to influenceinterests of avoiding frivolous or nugatory lawsuits.
their decisions do not typically occur. It may beBut is there a hidden agenda behind such claims? Is
possible to find an errant adjudicator, usually a judge,the issue about not trusting a panel of individual
but it is less likely to find twelve jurors who will comejurors to come to a clear consensus? Is wariness
to an outrageous conclusion.about frivolous lawsuits often a smokescreen for
America's Founding Fathers, those august signers andimmunizing wrongdoers from the consequences of
framers of the U.S. Constitution, recognized in theirtheir behavior? Would the dismissal of all juries really
collective judgment that a jury of a defendant'sbe in the best interests of our citizens? The right to
"peers," while not always fair or impartial, would betrial by jury is an integral part of the American
more reliable at arriving at "reasonable" decisions. Butsystem of law and justice and should be preserved.