LAWS 1002B “Response/Reflection #3” 2024

Due: See deadline on Brightspace

Length: Approximately 3 double-spaced pages (see syllabus for formatting details)
Weight: See syllabus

In their article “Justice and the Jury,” Brooks and Doob explain that the “proper role of the
jury has been the subject of extended and often vigorous debate in legal and political literature”
(p. 241). Those that defend the jury normally stress the jury’s value as a vital check on abuses
of state power in the administration of justice and as a means to ensure the accuracy of fact-
finding in the trial process.

This relatively “positive” view of the jury’s role has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of
Canada in decisions like Morgentaler and Kokopenace. The “representative” and practical
value of jury decisions in Canada hardly seems in question. But stubborn doubt remains!

In the latter half of their article (starting roughly at ‘Discretion and Extra-Legal Factors’ (p.
245), Brooks and Doob challenge the value of the jury as the best way to “check” the
potentially “unfair” rigidities of the legal system. They acknowledge that some form of
“discretion” is an important means to assure justice in individual cases… BUT argue that other
actors within the legal system (e.g. prosecutors and judges) are better able to use their
discretion to assure “fair outcomes”. Empowering juries to use their discretion to potentially
ignore the law may undermine the ‘rule of law’ and do more harm than good, they claim.

In the documentary we watched for W10, entitled Inside the Jury Room, we see a real jury
debate its powers and responsibilities in the case of Leroy Reed. The documentary shows us
the risks of relying on juries, and the challenges faced by members of the jury when they are
torn between what the law demands and what they feel is “just”.

Drawing explicitly on Brooks and Doob and Inside the Jury Room (and any other course
sources you wish), address the following questions:

Should we continue to rely on the jury in Canada as a key part of the criminal trial process? In
light of the points raised by Brooks and Doob, should jurors be able to use their discretion to
ignore the law in the pursuit of “just outcomes”? Do you agree with the outcome in the case of
Leroy Reed? How do you think Brooks and Doob would evaluate the jury’s deliberations and
decision in the case? Ultimately, does Leroy’s case make you feel more or less confident in the
value of juries? How might we reform the jury (if we should…) to improve Canada’s justice
system?

Page 1 of 2
Your reflection/response must do the following:

1) Demonstrate that you watched, and engaged with, the Inside the Jury Room documentary
(on Brightspace in W10); evaluate the “justness” or “fairness” of the jury’s decision
2) Demonstrate an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the jury as discussed by
Brooks and Doob; be able to connect their critical viewpoint to evaluate what happened in
the case depicted in the documentary (Leroy’s case)
3) Offer suggestions (even if brief) on how we might reconsider the role of the jury/reform the
jury in Canada (this could include expanding, limiting or even eliminating its powers (ie
getting rid of juries, changing its composition, etc)

Your response should also:

a) Be clearly organized in a way that addresses all the questions (some questions may take up
more space than others!). You may wish to organize this using paragraphs, but headings
are also acceptable (please do not submit a single “wall of text”)
b) Refer directly to the course sources using consistent and clear (intext) citations
c) Demonstrate “engagement” with the sources (go beyond basic summary)
d) Demonstrate care in the preparation and presentation of the response

Again, be confident, read this assignment carefully, and ask questions if things are unclear.
Good luck!

Page 2 of 2