That is why the scientific theories and dogmas enjoy much higher levels of veracity and credibility as compared to other academic disciplines. So much so, that scientific approach towards research and experimentation has been incorporated within the ambit of other disciplines and fields of enquiry like sociology, history, economics, jurisprudence, psychology, etc. The fact is that science has infiltrated every aspect of life and human existence and today there exists practically no social institution or concern that is devoid of scientific methods and approaches. Especially in the realm of law, science has brought about an unprecedented change and revolution. In the 21st century, scientific evidence is legitimately welcomed and accommodated in all the courts of law and it holds a credibility and veracity about which there exists no doubt. The scientific community has also promptly responded to this new challenge and responsibility by developing new disciplines like forensics that specifically cater to the realm of law and the techniques like finger print evidence, DNA fingerprinting, etc hold an almost unchallenged recognition in the courts of law.
With the digitization of the economies and scientific orientation of the means and ways of production, the courts of law are often required to contend with the litigations that require considerable amounts of scientific data and inputs. There is no denying the fact that the courts in the West have over the centuries, incorporated certain cardinal instruments within their frameworks and the jury is one such integral aspect of such legal frameworks. For good or for bad, the litigations requiring scientific data and discussion are not devoid of the decisive influence of juries and the concerned scientific evidence furnished in such cases is as much open to analysis by the jury as by judges, lawyers, litigants and other parties involved.
The entrance of science in the courtrooms has given way to a plethora of questions, apprehensions and doubts. Infact this new trend has exposed the jury to attacks and aspersions from various quarters of the society and intelligentsia. Such pressure groups, while citing the complexity and intricacy involved in the conception and understanding of scientific evidence as a valid excuse claim that the contemporary system of assorting juries that seldom requires and asks for relevant qualifications and scientific knowhow, has literally rendered the institution of jury as totally obsolete, especially in the court cases that involve considerable amounts of scientific evidence and theoretical arguments and discussions.
Such claims need to be qualified in the light of the basic objectives that led to the introduction of the institution of jury in the English legal system. It is imperative for the so called champions of science to understand that the jury is essentially a political institution and serves specific purposes in the democratic societies (Edmond and Mercer 331). Leaving the practical aspects of justice aside, a stiff opposition from the so called adherents of science is the biggest problem that the institution of jury faces in the 21st century. The reasons cited by such elements will be dealt with later on in this paper. First and foremost it is important to understand the political and democratic relevance of the jury in the Western legal