Criminology task 7
Juries
A jury is present during a court proceeding and is in charge of selecting the case's judgement. The
Jury Act of 1974 and the Criminal Justice Act of 2003 govern jury selection eligibility. Jurors are
chosen at random and must be between the ages of 18 and 75, with no criminal records. They are
guided by the judge, who presents points of law, because they have no legal understanding. The
verdict cannot be challenged. Due to the importance of judicial proceedings, jury duty is mandatory
unless there are exceptional personal circumstances.
The jury system is popular among members of the public because it protects the right to a fair trial
and impartiality. The right to be tried in front of our peers is an important component of judicial
history and is seen as a democratic right. With 12 persons on each jury, no single person is held
responsible for the result, allowing for a more comprehensive review of evidence and the
consideration of several points of view. As a result, if the offender is judged guilty by 12 persons who
reflect the UK population, with all opinions and facts examined, the judgement is likely to be safe
and representative of popular opinion. Having 12 jury members also lowers bias and ensures that no
single individual can be held liable in the event of an incorrect verdict. Furthermore, jury
deliberations are done in private in a secure chamber, and members of the jury are not expected to
justify their decision. This may encourage the jurors to select a verdict that is unpopular with the
public, knowing that they will not be detained or questioned about their decision. This also aids their
impartiality, ensuring the right to an impartial jury.
When deliberate on a matter, jurors may contribute their own ideas and sense of justice, which is
known as jury equity. For example, while determining whether a person is guilty or innocent, they
will examine moral considerations rather than legal points. This was demonstrated in the case of R V
Owen, in which the defendant's son was murdered by a careless driver whose truck was not
roadworthy nor insured. The driver was also blind and did not have a driving license. Own shot the
truck driver and was charged with attempted murder. Despite the fact that Own was clearly guilty,
the jury acquitted him on moral grounds, with some jury members later congratulating him, many of
whom believed they would have done the same. Furthermore, in the instance of R v Ponting,
Ponting discovered proof that the government had misled to the public about the sinking of a ship
during the Falkland War and submitted this document to an opposition party so that the subject
might be debated in parliament. He was prosecuted for violating the Secrets Act, but he was found
not guilty because the jury thought that this material should have been made public and that he
made the correct decision in disclosing the paper. In both of these cases, the jury defied the law by
finding the prisoner innocent despite the fact that they were clearly guilty. This is a strength of the
jury because it demonstrates how justice is upheld in different ways; if the judge had considered the
verdict the defendants would have been found guilty under the law, but as the jury's verdict stands,
the defendants cannot be charged for the crime.
However, many of the jurors' strengths might also be their flaws. For example, because the jury is
not required to justify its decisions, they may actively follow their own interests and views and
produce a judgement that is diametrically opposed to what the evidence indicates. This may be
illustrated in the case of R V Kronlid, when the jury acquitted a defendant despite clear proof of guilt.
Despite proof that the defendants did destroy a jet to prevent it from being used in a terrorist
attack, a jury ruled them innocent based on their own values and beliefs. This happened again in the
case of R V Randle and Pottle, who were prosecuted 25 years ago for assisting a Soviet spy in
escaping from prison and flying back to Russia. The defendants accepted their guilt but expressed
Juries
A jury is present during a court proceeding and is in charge of selecting the case's judgement. The
Jury Act of 1974 and the Criminal Justice Act of 2003 govern jury selection eligibility. Jurors are
chosen at random and must be between the ages of 18 and 75, with no criminal records. They are
guided by the judge, who presents points of law, because they have no legal understanding. The
verdict cannot be challenged. Due to the importance of judicial proceedings, jury duty is mandatory
unless there are exceptional personal circumstances.
The jury system is popular among members of the public because it protects the right to a fair trial
and impartiality. The right to be tried in front of our peers is an important component of judicial
history and is seen as a democratic right. With 12 persons on each jury, no single person is held
responsible for the result, allowing for a more comprehensive review of evidence and the
consideration of several points of view. As a result, if the offender is judged guilty by 12 persons who
reflect the UK population, with all opinions and facts examined, the judgement is likely to be safe
and representative of popular opinion. Having 12 jury members also lowers bias and ensures that no
single individual can be held liable in the event of an incorrect verdict. Furthermore, jury
deliberations are done in private in a secure chamber, and members of the jury are not expected to
justify their decision. This may encourage the jurors to select a verdict that is unpopular with the
public, knowing that they will not be detained or questioned about their decision. This also aids their
impartiality, ensuring the right to an impartial jury.
When deliberate on a matter, jurors may contribute their own ideas and sense of justice, which is
known as jury equity. For example, while determining whether a person is guilty or innocent, they
will examine moral considerations rather than legal points. This was demonstrated in the case of R V
Owen, in which the defendant's son was murdered by a careless driver whose truck was not
roadworthy nor insured. The driver was also blind and did not have a driving license. Own shot the
truck driver and was charged with attempted murder. Despite the fact that Own was clearly guilty,
the jury acquitted him on moral grounds, with some jury members later congratulating him, many of
whom believed they would have done the same. Furthermore, in the instance of R v Ponting,
Ponting discovered proof that the government had misled to the public about the sinking of a ship
during the Falkland War and submitted this document to an opposition party so that the subject
might be debated in parliament. He was prosecuted for violating the Secrets Act, but he was found
not guilty because the jury thought that this material should have been made public and that he
made the correct decision in disclosing the paper. In both of these cases, the jury defied the law by
finding the prisoner innocent despite the fact that they were clearly guilty. This is a strength of the
jury because it demonstrates how justice is upheld in different ways; if the judge had considered the
verdict the defendants would have been found guilty under the law, but as the jury's verdict stands,
the defendants cannot be charged for the crime.
However, many of the jurors' strengths might also be their flaws. For example, because the jury is
not required to justify its decisions, they may actively follow their own interests and views and
produce a judgement that is diametrically opposed to what the evidence indicates. This may be
illustrated in the case of R V Kronlid, when the jury acquitted a defendant despite clear proof of guilt.
Despite proof that the defendants did destroy a jet to prevent it from being used in a terrorist
attack, a jury ruled them innocent based on their own values and beliefs. This happened again in the
case of R V Randle and Pottle, who were prosecuted 25 years ago for assisting a Soviet spy in
escaping from prison and flying back to Russia. The defendants accepted their guilt but expressed
