AC 2.5 Discuss the use of lay people in criminal cases
6 MARKS = 29 MINUTES
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
Juries
Jurors are randomly selected lay people, however, a certain criteria must be met - must be
between the ages of 18-75, on the electoral register and be a resident of the UK for at least
5 years from age 13. Additionally, you must have no previous convictions, specific mental
illnesses or have ever worked in law for example if you are or were a solicitor you would not
be eligible. The role of the jury in criminal court is to make the decision on the verdict based
on evidence provided by both sides; decide on what they consider to be conclusive facts and
evidence; discuss their opinions privately to reach a unanimous or majority opinion on the
verdict. However, the jury does not control any of the sentencing, they only determine
whether the defendant is guilty or not.
An advantage of jurors is that it’s public participation. This means that ordinary people are
allowed to make decisions on the justice system, this shows transparency in the system and
promotes British values of democracy. As they are randomly selected, it means anyone who
has the ability to vote can make decisions in the justice system, ensuring a diverse
representation of public opinion. Another advantage is that having a jury safeguards against
bias. Sometimes, legal personnel may hold a certain bias towards the case so having
ordinary citizens who can provide a wider view on the situation can counter such bias’.
During the R v Young case in 1995, some members of the jury were found to have been
using a ouija board in a hotel room, supposedly speaking to the deceased victims. This was
deemed to have an impact on the outcome, meaning that Young was able to have a re-trial,
showing how the jury system works against bias. Furthermore, an advantage of the jury is
that it enhances public confidence in the system. Public participation in the trial increases
public trust in the justice system as verdicts come from lay people with no legal backgrounds
rather than trained professionals. A statistic that proves this is that The Ministry of Justice in
2020 found that over 70 percent of the public believe that juries make trials more fair.
On the other hand, Juries can be very unpredictable, they are not required to provide
reasons for their verdict which can lead to inconsistencies in trials. For example, in the OJ
Simpson case, the jury acquitted Simpson after only 4 hours of deliberation, even though
there were over 108 counts of DNA evidence linking Simpson to the crime scene. The jury’s
decision left the public shocked. Another disadvantage of juries is that they can be
influenced by dominant jurors. Some people may have more strong and confident opinions
on the case which may lead to other members of the jury feeling pressured into agreeing
with them. A study conducted by Thomas in 2010 showed that some jurors may feel
pressured during deliberations by those with very strong opinions, which leads to verdicts
not being independent. Furthermore, due to jurors being randomly selected members of the
public, there is a risk they may be incompetent. Some jurors may not understand evidence
provided or proceedings, especially in lengthy or complicated trials for example those
pertaining to white collar crime. Some studies suggest that jurors may not understand all the
complex language used in court, for example one study claimed that up to 33 percent of
jurors failed to understand some of the key terms used during the trial.
6 MARKS = 29 MINUTES
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
Juries
Jurors are randomly selected lay people, however, a certain criteria must be met - must be
between the ages of 18-75, on the electoral register and be a resident of the UK for at least
5 years from age 13. Additionally, you must have no previous convictions, specific mental
illnesses or have ever worked in law for example if you are or were a solicitor you would not
be eligible. The role of the jury in criminal court is to make the decision on the verdict based
on evidence provided by both sides; decide on what they consider to be conclusive facts and
evidence; discuss their opinions privately to reach a unanimous or majority opinion on the
verdict. However, the jury does not control any of the sentencing, they only determine
whether the defendant is guilty or not.
An advantage of jurors is that it’s public participation. This means that ordinary people are
allowed to make decisions on the justice system, this shows transparency in the system and
promotes British values of democracy. As they are randomly selected, it means anyone who
has the ability to vote can make decisions in the justice system, ensuring a diverse
representation of public opinion. Another advantage is that having a jury safeguards against
bias. Sometimes, legal personnel may hold a certain bias towards the case so having
ordinary citizens who can provide a wider view on the situation can counter such bias’.
During the R v Young case in 1995, some members of the jury were found to have been
using a ouija board in a hotel room, supposedly speaking to the deceased victims. This was
deemed to have an impact on the outcome, meaning that Young was able to have a re-trial,
showing how the jury system works against bias. Furthermore, an advantage of the jury is
that it enhances public confidence in the system. Public participation in the trial increases
public trust in the justice system as verdicts come from lay people with no legal backgrounds
rather than trained professionals. A statistic that proves this is that The Ministry of Justice in
2020 found that over 70 percent of the public believe that juries make trials more fair.
On the other hand, Juries can be very unpredictable, they are not required to provide
reasons for their verdict which can lead to inconsistencies in trials. For example, in the OJ
Simpson case, the jury acquitted Simpson after only 4 hours of deliberation, even though
there were over 108 counts of DNA evidence linking Simpson to the crime scene. The jury’s
decision left the public shocked. Another disadvantage of juries is that they can be
influenced by dominant jurors. Some people may have more strong and confident opinions
on the case which may lead to other members of the jury feeling pressured into agreeing
with them. A study conducted by Thomas in 2010 showed that some jurors may feel
pressured during deliberations by those with very strong opinions, which leads to verdicts
not being independent. Furthermore, due to jurors being randomly selected members of the
public, there is a risk they may be incompetent. Some jurors may not understand evidence
provided or proceedings, especially in lengthy or complicated trials for example those
pertaining to white collar crime. Some studies suggest that jurors may not understand all the
complex language used in court, for example one study claimed that up to 33 percent of
jurors failed to understand some of the key terms used during the trial.
