The United States must preserve the jury trial system

Chhabed Sathee
Throughout the history of the United States, the innumerable social benefits of jury trials and its almost sacrosanct constitutional status have never been questioned. In 1774, John Adams said, “Representative government and trial by jury are the heart and lungs of liberty.”
If Adams’ sentiment had been present in all of the Founding Fathers, as it surely was, then liberty today may be facing a serious health risk.
Recently, the United Kingdom, the birthplace of modern jury trials, has taken steps to abolish jury trials in cases that carry a sentence of less than three years. The proposal, which is aimed at reducing the backlog of court cases, is touted as having the advantages of speedy disposal and cost savings. Such a dramatic move by the country known as our ‘motherland’ calls for a deep rethink of the state of jury trials in the United States, especially on the eve of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
Jury trials are not just a procedural option; It is a cornerstone of democratic governance and one of the most important safeguards against the “law of justice” (the use of the law as a weapon) and the arbitrary, uncontrolled exercise of power by the government.
In the United States judicial system, juries play an essential role by placing ordinary citizens at the center of justice. Their importance is not because they are not experts, but because of their experience and conscience as citizens. Juries represent the refined conscience of society. As a result, when juries render judgments, the law is applied not only by government officials but also with the participation and consent of the governed.
This sharing of power between government and the people creates accountability, ensures transparency, and enhances public trust—values ​​that cannot be fully achieved if decisions are centralized in the hands of judges or administrative agencies alone.

Even on the grounds of efficiency or cost-saving, the abolition of the jury would weaken a fundamental check on sovereign power. Alexis de Tocqueville, an early observer of the American experiment in self-government, warned: ‘Those rulers who have sought to confine the sources of their power to themselves… have destroyed the jury system… The Tudors imprisoned those they would not convict, and Napoleon chose the juries by his agents.
History teaches us that once centralized power has grown, it rarely shrinks of itself. This recognition of the dangers of centralization is the fundamental reason why our Constitution preserves the right to a jury trial. This guarantee reflects a conscious decision of the Founding Fathers—one that stems from centuries of experience with the abuse of government power since ancient times. Jury trials are a reminder that justice in a free society depends as much on citizen participation as on institutional efficiency.
This right did not come easily. In 1801, Thomas Jefferson said, “The wisdom of our wise men and the blood of our brave men have been devoted to the right to a jury trial. This should be the motto of our political creed.” The goal of cost reduction and speed must be achieved by strengthening the federal and state judicial systems with adequate resources and not by taking power away from the people and placing it in the hands of a centralized government.
This control over government power is especially important in today’s polarized environment, where some reckless prosecutors are increasingly selectively prosecuting politically unpopular individuals rather than applying the law equally.
Although most Americans still support the idea of ​​a jury trial, the cultural warning signs are clear. Plea deals are now the norm in criminal courts, with more than 98 percent of cases resolved this way, with efficiency, certainty, and cost savings being prioritized over the benefits of a jury trial. Juries are even rarer in civil cases; juries reach verdicts in less than 1 percent of cases. In an environment where juries are rarely formed in our courts, the institutional skills and legal experience needed to conduct and develop jury trials are eroded. We can do better.
The United States may sometimes stand alone in preserving jury trials, but for good reason. We should never forget that a major cause of the rebellion against King George was his reformed system of justice for the colonies, which curtailed the right to a jury trial. The reality is that limiting or abolishing jury trials is an inevitable step toward dictatorship.
The institution of jury trials affirms an eternal principle: liberty is protected when the people themselves take a direct role in the administration of justice. Preserving our jury system is essential to ensuring justice in the courts, limiting government overreach, and protecting our rights as Americans.

Chhabed Sathee: US-based writer, journalist and American political analyst. Editor, Bangla Press.

(*This report is produced by Bangla Press. Reprinting of our content, images or broadcasts in any other media without permission is strictly prohibited).

BP/SM