AC 2.5 Writing Frames
Juries:
The role of the jury in court is to decide on whether the defendant is guilty or not
guilty in a crown court; this is why they are often called the ‘decider of fact’. The
jury is made up of 12 laypeople between the ages of 18 and 75 who have been
randomly selected from the electoral register. Some people are exempt from jury
service. This is anyone that has served life imprisonment or a sentence of 5 or
more years, anyone with a mental disorder that would impact their ability to
serve and anyone with a lack of capacity, for example, unable to speak English.
You would also be disqualified for 10 years if you served a sentence of less than
5 years, a suspended sentence or a community order. A very key aspect of the
jury is that they should be independent and impartial, even from the judge. This
helps to ensure that there is a fair trial. However, there are instances where this
rule hasn’t been upheld. For example, the R v Mckenna case in 1960 whereby the
judge attempted to pressure the jury into giving a verdict by stating that they
would be locked up all night if they couldn’t give a verdict in 10 minutes. This
highlights the importance of the jury remaining independent so that they aren’t
pushed into giving a verdict that they may not have properly thought through,
which would undermine their validity.
One strength of the jury is that they are majorly impartial. The jury consists of
randomly selected members of the public. These people will have their own
upbringing and beliefs which means that prejudices can be cancelled out.
Whereas, if it was just one individual, their prejudices and opinions would be
strong in their verdict. This helps to ensure that the verdict is fair and that the
verdict is representing the opinion of ordinary people. Another strength of the
jury is jury equity. Unlike judges, their decisions are not controlled by the law or
precedents. Precedents are the verdict that a similar case came to in the past
which judges would have to follow for any future case of the same nature. This
means that they have completely freedom to go off the circumstances of the
case in front of them and their own beliefs to come to a fair verdict.
However, one weakness of the jury is the risk of racial bias. Since jurors are
simply regular members of the public, there is always the possibility of them
having their own strong prejudices which could affect the overall verdict. For
example, in the Sander v UK trial in 1995, 2 jurors were caught making racist
comments about the Asian defendant. This was brought to the judge but the trial
was allowed to continue. However, the European Court of Human Rights later
investigated the case and found this to be an unfair trial, yet Sander had already
served 3 years in prison. Another weakness of the jury is the influence of media.
High profile cases, such as mass murders, will receive great media interest.
These stories are very easily accessible to jurors before and during the trial
through sources such as social media and newspapers. Although members of the
jury are told not to take any of this into consideration when reaching their
verdict, it is difficult for them to forget it completely. In the case of R v Taylor and
Taylor in 1993 the jury concluded that the individuals were guilty. However, the
Court of Appeal later quashed this because of ‘extensive, sensational and
inaccurate’ media coverage at the time of the trial which could have led to an
unfair verdict.
Juries:
The role of the jury in court is to decide on whether the defendant is guilty or not
guilty in a crown court; this is why they are often called the ‘decider of fact’. The
jury is made up of 12 laypeople between the ages of 18 and 75 who have been
randomly selected from the electoral register. Some people are exempt from jury
service. This is anyone that has served life imprisonment or a sentence of 5 or
more years, anyone with a mental disorder that would impact their ability to
serve and anyone with a lack of capacity, for example, unable to speak English.
You would also be disqualified for 10 years if you served a sentence of less than
5 years, a suspended sentence or a community order. A very key aspect of the
jury is that they should be independent and impartial, even from the judge. This
helps to ensure that there is a fair trial. However, there are instances where this
rule hasn’t been upheld. For example, the R v Mckenna case in 1960 whereby the
judge attempted to pressure the jury into giving a verdict by stating that they
would be locked up all night if they couldn’t give a verdict in 10 minutes. This
highlights the importance of the jury remaining independent so that they aren’t
pushed into giving a verdict that they may not have properly thought through,
which would undermine their validity.
One strength of the jury is that they are majorly impartial. The jury consists of
randomly selected members of the public. These people will have their own
upbringing and beliefs which means that prejudices can be cancelled out.
Whereas, if it was just one individual, their prejudices and opinions would be
strong in their verdict. This helps to ensure that the verdict is fair and that the
verdict is representing the opinion of ordinary people. Another strength of the
jury is jury equity. Unlike judges, their decisions are not controlled by the law or
precedents. Precedents are the verdict that a similar case came to in the past
which judges would have to follow for any future case of the same nature. This
means that they have completely freedom to go off the circumstances of the
case in front of them and their own beliefs to come to a fair verdict.
However, one weakness of the jury is the risk of racial bias. Since jurors are
simply regular members of the public, there is always the possibility of them
having their own strong prejudices which could affect the overall verdict. For
example, in the Sander v UK trial in 1995, 2 jurors were caught making racist
comments about the Asian defendant. This was brought to the judge but the trial
was allowed to continue. However, the European Court of Human Rights later
investigated the case and found this to be an unfair trial, yet Sander had already
served 3 years in prison. Another weakness of the jury is the influence of media.
High profile cases, such as mass murders, will receive great media interest.
These stories are very easily accessible to jurors before and during the trial
through sources such as social media and newspapers. Although members of the
jury are told not to take any of this into consideration when reaching their
verdict, it is difficult for them to forget it completely. In the case of R v Taylor and
Taylor in 1993 the jury concluded that the individuals were guilty. However, the
Court of Appeal later quashed this because of ‘extensive, sensational and
inaccurate’ media coverage at the time of the trial which could have led to an
unfair verdict.
