History Sustains the Jury System
The Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal
Grant M. Fox
May 11, 2003

In 1789, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution....”

The only place that the average Mississippian is equal to the government or to one of the largest corporations in the country is before a jury of citizens.

The jury system is one particular tenant of the American way of life that has truly made our democracy unique.  I believe it is sacrosanct and worth fighting for if the individual rights of our citizens are to be protected through the courts.

Historians have debated the origins of the jury system with many feeling that it was brought to England by William the Conqueror in 1066.  Others argue that the system previously existed in England in some form.  What is not in dispute is that by the time of the founding of our country, some form of the jury system had been in place for over 500 years.

The right to a trial by jury took a special place in history during the days prior to the American Revolution.  Colonial juries often acquitted shippers who had evaded English custom duties.  In an effort to quell American colonists’ taste for independence, the crown eliminated juries in these cases and required these shippers to be defendants tried before a special commission in England where all decisions were made by judges without juries.

The role that jurors play in the justice system is the purest and most proven way to empower citizens to make decisions that affect everyday lives.  The jury system allows impartial citizens to fashion remedies based on all facts presented in a particular case rather than having these decisions made by  elected or politically appointed judges.  When restrictions are placed on a juror’s decision-making ability, we all lose because power has been stripped away from the citizenry by the influence of special interest groups.

Chief Federal Judge Glen Davidson, in a recent interview with this paper, stated: “I have presided over hundreds of jury trials in the past sixteen and one half years. I do not remember any trial in which I thought a jury verdict was not reasonably based on the facts of the case.  The United States is one of the very few countries in the world that has trial by jury.  I personally feel that the jury trial is the fairest, most competent manner in which to resolve disputes.  I have always been impressed with the conscientious manner in which juries went about their very serious responsibilities.”

Those who advocate capping damages fail to tell the public that the presiding judge or an appellate court can adjust the verdict amount or throw it out all together if the reviewer believes the verdict to be out of line.  In many of the highly publicized jury awards, appellate courts relieved the defendant of what was perceived to be an excessive verdict.  But this subsequent event is usually much less dramatically reported.

Conservatives have warmly embraced the tort reform issue.  As someone who has been active in GOP politics for my entire life, I have listened to Republican office holders lecture time and time again about how power should be given to individual citizens and not to politicians or “arrogant federal judges.”  They insist that decisions regarding government should be made at the local level when possible and not by the United States Congress or the Mississippi Legislature.  Jurors are local, unelected citizens - do these same leaders contradict themselves when they call for damage caps?

Politicians who attack the jury system do so based on the fact that it is politically expedient at the present time to do so.  These elected officials have no sense of history and care more about being reelected than sound public policy.

We are told that caps must be enacted in order to curb rising insurance rates in order to better society in general.  Does this sound familiar?  Sacrificing individual rights for the betterment of society?  It’s called socialism and it has been left on the ash heap of history as a failed policy system.

Every law that is passed that restricts the ability of jurors to fashion verdicts diminishes freedoms that we as Americans enjoy.  When the members of the Mississippi legislature vote for damage caps and tell a citizen of Lee County that he or she cannot award more than a certain amount of money to a party in a lawsuit, this deprives us of the principles that this country was founded on over 200 years ago.

We would do well to heed the words of Ben Franklin when he said, “He who gives up liberty for a little temporary security deserves neither liberty nor security.”

May 11, 2003

Grant Fox, a native of Chickasaw County, lives in Tupelo where he practices law.