Ac2.5
Juries are one of the laypeople, specifically attending crown court cases and
some inquests. They are ordinary members of the public who are selected
randomly from the electoral roll and their priority is to come to a verdict of
whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty, after hearing evidence from both
sides. The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 shields the jurors from illegal
questioning about their verdict (unless other jurors report them for
misconduct or any other activities that would lead to an unfair verdict). One
strength of jurors is jury equity which reinforces that they are free to come to
their own verdict regardless of the law or the judge's direction. For example, in
the R v Ponting case in 1985, the jurors declared Clive Ponting (who leaked
secret documents to an MP about the sinking of an Argentinian cruiser during
the Falklands War) not guilty despite the judge pushing for a guilty conviction.
This is crucial as it leads to a morally right conviction rather than a legally right
conviction. Another strength is the impartiality which leads to a fairer trial: the
fact that they are randomly selected members not only avoids individual
prejudice but also means that elite judges won’t be harsh just because they
cannot relate to the circumstances. There is a much higher risk of less
consideration being received from elite judges primarily due to the fact they
are usually all white, old men meaning having jurors allows the justice legal
system to be more open. Secrecy is also a major advantage seeing as the
protection from the outside reassures the jurors that they can come to an
unpopular verdict without any deliberations being made to the public. There
are disadvantages to jurors, one of them being racial bias where they may use
their personal stereotypes to come to a verdict. During Kuldip Sander’s trial, a
juror tried informing the judge of the racial comments being made by two
other jurors however, the case was allowed to continue. Once her appeal
reached the European Court of Human rights, they agreed that Sander was
denied of a fair trial. Another weakness is media influence where the juror's
verdict may be manipulated by the internet's perception of the defendant. For
instance, during the Taylor sisters' trial, there was “extensive, sensational, and
inaccurate” newspaper converse of the case which then led to the court of
appeal quashing the conviction due to the highly likelihood of the judge being
affected by the prejudice.
Magistrates are also laypeople and sit in panels of three, hearing and deciding
on the verdict of roughly 95% of all criminal cases. If they find the defendant
guilty, they can fine them an unlimited amount or sentence them upto 12
months in prison. They are unpaid volunteers meaning they have the
advantage of democracy: the fact that they are ordinary people and not state
Juries are one of the laypeople, specifically attending crown court cases and
some inquests. They are ordinary members of the public who are selected
randomly from the electoral roll and their priority is to come to a verdict of
whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty, after hearing evidence from both
sides. The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 shields the jurors from illegal
questioning about their verdict (unless other jurors report them for
misconduct or any other activities that would lead to an unfair verdict). One
strength of jurors is jury equity which reinforces that they are free to come to
their own verdict regardless of the law or the judge's direction. For example, in
the R v Ponting case in 1985, the jurors declared Clive Ponting (who leaked
secret documents to an MP about the sinking of an Argentinian cruiser during
the Falklands War) not guilty despite the judge pushing for a guilty conviction.
This is crucial as it leads to a morally right conviction rather than a legally right
conviction. Another strength is the impartiality which leads to a fairer trial: the
fact that they are randomly selected members not only avoids individual
prejudice but also means that elite judges won’t be harsh just because they
cannot relate to the circumstances. There is a much higher risk of less
consideration being received from elite judges primarily due to the fact they
are usually all white, old men meaning having jurors allows the justice legal
system to be more open. Secrecy is also a major advantage seeing as the
protection from the outside reassures the jurors that they can come to an
unpopular verdict without any deliberations being made to the public. There
are disadvantages to jurors, one of them being racial bias where they may use
their personal stereotypes to come to a verdict. During Kuldip Sander’s trial, a
juror tried informing the judge of the racial comments being made by two
other jurors however, the case was allowed to continue. Once her appeal
reached the European Court of Human rights, they agreed that Sander was
denied of a fair trial. Another weakness is media influence where the juror's
verdict may be manipulated by the internet's perception of the defendant. For
instance, during the Taylor sisters' trial, there was “extensive, sensational, and
inaccurate” newspaper converse of the case which then led to the court of
appeal quashing the conviction due to the highly likelihood of the judge being
affected by the prejudice.
Magistrates are also laypeople and sit in panels of three, hearing and deciding
on the verdict of roughly 95% of all criminal cases. If they find the defendant
guilty, they can fine them an unlimited amount or sentence them upto 12
months in prison. They are unpaid volunteers meaning they have the
advantage of democracy: the fact that they are ordinary people and not state
