AC2.5
Discuss the use of laypeople in criminal cases
Laypeople – a person without professional or specialised knowledge in a particular subject
(members of the general public)
JURY
• A jury consists of 12 people
• Members of the jury are selected by the electoral register at random
• In order to qualify to be on a jury you must be between 18-75 years old.
• Disqualified people – people who are on probation, people on bail and people who
have been previously sentenced.
• Jury cases can last on average up to 10 days
• If you do not attend the jury after being selected, you will face a fine.
• The role of the jury is to carefully consider evidence then collectively decide the
verdict of guilty or not guilty.
• Court clarks call out 12 people to sit in the jury box. – They must then take the jury
oath (to try the case fairly).
• The judge can clarify the law and summarise the details of the case to help the jury
make their decision
• It is illegal to disclose any information regarding the case to outside people.
• Jury members are taken to the jury deliberation room to discuss the verdict with
other jury members
• Jury members usually agree with each other, but sometimes the judge will allow an
anonymous vote if appropriate.
Strengths:
✓ An advantage of using juries during criminal cases is impartiality. This is shown by
how someone will usually sit on the just for 2-3 weeks, and generally hears only 1 or
2 cases. This is in contrast to magistrates and judges who hear multiple cases. This is
good because it allows members of the jury to solely focus on one case at a time,
meaning their full attention will be on the case, so there will be higher quality results.
This also eliminates any risk of comparison/ confusion between cases, meaning the
results will be more reliable and stronger.
✓ Another advantage is jury secrecy. This is shown by how by law, the jury’s
deliberations are held in secret in the deliberation room, and are protected from
outside pressures and influences. This therefore allows them to discuss controversial
, decisions. This is a strength as there is no backlash from the general public, meaning
that people feel safer and protected from outside controversy, ultimately meaning
people feel better about going on the jury. Additionally, there will be no media
influence during discussions, meaning people are not afraid to give harsh opinions
and people will be punished properly.
✓ Next, a final advantage is jury equity. This is shown by how juries are not bound by
law, unlike judges, meaning they do not have to follow the law to come to their
verdict, instead, they can give whatever verdict they believe is morally right. This is
good because people are free to say their true uncensored opinions. This eliminates
bias from legislation, and you can instead consider individual circumstances, thus a
fairer outcome. This also reduces the risk of a miscarriage of justice, which will
increase the reputation of the legal system. A case which shows this is Kay Gilderdale.
Kay was jailed for injecting her brain-damaged child with a lethal heroin dose at her
request, in order to end her suffering. The CPS decided there was sufficient evidence
to provide a conviction for attempted murder and assisted suicide. However, the jury
found her not guilty and shared strong sympathy for her. She was acquitted after the
jury took into account her individual circumstances.
Disadvantages:
However, a disadvantage of using juries during criminal cases is jury secrecy. This is
because there are only 12 members in the jury and there is no way of actually
knowing how they came to their decision, as they are taken into the private
deliberation room. This is an issue as it reduces the fairness of the trial and the
outcome, as people may be influenced by other jury members who may be more
dominating, thus meaning people are not able to give their opinions on the case. This
also questions how ethically the verdict was made. This means that someone may be
convicted of a crime, despite only one jury member coming to that decision, purely
because they have a dominating personality.
Another disadvantage of juries is that juries have a much higher acquittal rate than
magistrates. This is shown by how 60% of those who plead not guilty in Crown Court
are found not guilty by the jury. This is an issue as it raises concerns whether the jury
only found the defendant not guilty, purely because that is how they may have
previously pleaded. This means that people may lie during their plea, and then in
court any evidence which could prove that they are guilty may be dismissed by the
jury, and instead they come to their verdict on the basis of their previous plea. This
means that juries are not considering all evidence shown in court, thus meaning that
vital evidence may be missed, meaning miscarriages of justice. This is an issue as it
reduces the reputation of the legal system and people lose trust in the courts,
meaning people may choose not to report crimes.
A final issue with juries is the risk of a perverse decision. This is a verdict by the jury
which is against the weight of the evidence. This is an issue as it defeats the purpose
Discuss the use of laypeople in criminal cases
Laypeople – a person without professional or specialised knowledge in a particular subject
(members of the general public)
JURY
• A jury consists of 12 people
• Members of the jury are selected by the electoral register at random
• In order to qualify to be on a jury you must be between 18-75 years old.
• Disqualified people – people who are on probation, people on bail and people who
have been previously sentenced.
• Jury cases can last on average up to 10 days
• If you do not attend the jury after being selected, you will face a fine.
• The role of the jury is to carefully consider evidence then collectively decide the
verdict of guilty or not guilty.
• Court clarks call out 12 people to sit in the jury box. – They must then take the jury
oath (to try the case fairly).
• The judge can clarify the law and summarise the details of the case to help the jury
make their decision
• It is illegal to disclose any information regarding the case to outside people.
• Jury members are taken to the jury deliberation room to discuss the verdict with
other jury members
• Jury members usually agree with each other, but sometimes the judge will allow an
anonymous vote if appropriate.
Strengths:
✓ An advantage of using juries during criminal cases is impartiality. This is shown by
how someone will usually sit on the just for 2-3 weeks, and generally hears only 1 or
2 cases. This is in contrast to magistrates and judges who hear multiple cases. This is
good because it allows members of the jury to solely focus on one case at a time,
meaning their full attention will be on the case, so there will be higher quality results.
This also eliminates any risk of comparison/ confusion between cases, meaning the
results will be more reliable and stronger.
✓ Another advantage is jury secrecy. This is shown by how by law, the jury’s
deliberations are held in secret in the deliberation room, and are protected from
outside pressures and influences. This therefore allows them to discuss controversial
, decisions. This is a strength as there is no backlash from the general public, meaning
that people feel safer and protected from outside controversy, ultimately meaning
people feel better about going on the jury. Additionally, there will be no media
influence during discussions, meaning people are not afraid to give harsh opinions
and people will be punished properly.
✓ Next, a final advantage is jury equity. This is shown by how juries are not bound by
law, unlike judges, meaning they do not have to follow the law to come to their
verdict, instead, they can give whatever verdict they believe is morally right. This is
good because people are free to say their true uncensored opinions. This eliminates
bias from legislation, and you can instead consider individual circumstances, thus a
fairer outcome. This also reduces the risk of a miscarriage of justice, which will
increase the reputation of the legal system. A case which shows this is Kay Gilderdale.
Kay was jailed for injecting her brain-damaged child with a lethal heroin dose at her
request, in order to end her suffering. The CPS decided there was sufficient evidence
to provide a conviction for attempted murder and assisted suicide. However, the jury
found her not guilty and shared strong sympathy for her. She was acquitted after the
jury took into account her individual circumstances.
Disadvantages:
However, a disadvantage of using juries during criminal cases is jury secrecy. This is
because there are only 12 members in the jury and there is no way of actually
knowing how they came to their decision, as they are taken into the private
deliberation room. This is an issue as it reduces the fairness of the trial and the
outcome, as people may be influenced by other jury members who may be more
dominating, thus meaning people are not able to give their opinions on the case. This
also questions how ethically the verdict was made. This means that someone may be
convicted of a crime, despite only one jury member coming to that decision, purely
because they have a dominating personality.
Another disadvantage of juries is that juries have a much higher acquittal rate than
magistrates. This is shown by how 60% of those who plead not guilty in Crown Court
are found not guilty by the jury. This is an issue as it raises concerns whether the jury
only found the defendant not guilty, purely because that is how they may have
previously pleaded. This means that people may lie during their plea, and then in
court any evidence which could prove that they are guilty may be dismissed by the
jury, and instead they come to their verdict on the basis of their previous plea. This
means that juries are not considering all evidence shown in court, thus meaning that
vital evidence may be missed, meaning miscarriages of justice. This is an issue as it
reduces the reputation of the legal system and people lose trust in the courts,
meaning people may choose not to report crimes.
A final issue with juries is the risk of a perverse decision. This is a verdict by the jury
which is against the weight of the evidence. This is an issue as it defeats the purpose
