Discuss the Disadvantages of Using Juries in Criminal Cases (SA P1) Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Main structure for P1

A
  • Point: secrecy
  • Example: Young 1985
  • Counter argument: secrecy of the jury room
  • Example: Bushell’s Case 1670
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Main structure for P2

A
  • Point: Perverse decisions
  • Example: Kronlid 1996
  • Counter argument: Jury equity
  • Example: Ponting’s Case 1984
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Main structure for P3

A
  • Point: media influence
  • Example: Taylor Sisters 1993
  • Counter argument: Impartiality
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Main structure for P4

A
  • Point: lack of understanding
  • Example: research shows doubts about 5% of jury convictions
  • Counter argument: open system of justice
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Secrecy

A
  • Jury does not need to give a reason for decision reached
  • Makes it difficult for D appeal
  • No way of knowing how the decision was reached or if the case was understood
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

When was the case of young?

A

1985

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What happened in Young 1985?

A

4 jurors held seance to try contact 2 murder victims to find out who murdered them

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Counter argument of secrecy of the jury room

A
  • Jurors are free from pressure in discussion
  • Can ignore strict letter of the law
  • Demonstrated in Bushell’s case 1670
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

When was Bushell’s case?

A

1670

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What happened in Bushell’s case 1670?

A
  • Jury refused to convict Quaker activists
  • Fined and imprisoned
  • Released after an appeal
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Perverse decisions

A
  • Juries able to ignore laws they feel are unjust
  • Creates uncertainty
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

When was the case of Kronlid?

A

1996

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What happened in the case of Kronlid 1996?

A

Jury acquitted group of peace campaigners who caused damage to a Hawk jet fighter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Counter argument of jury equity

A
  • Jury can disagree with a particular law
  • Apply their own idea of fairness
  • Juries almost always reach a verdict and convict 2/3 of the time
  • Ponting’s case 1984
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

When was Ponting’s case?

A

1984

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What happened in Ponting’s case 1984?

A

Jury refused to convict a civil servant who had leaked information

17
Q

Media influence

A
  • Difficult for juries to remain independent and free from influence
  • Especially on high profile cases where there is a lot of publicity
18
Q

When was the case of the Taylor Sisters?

A

1993

19
Q

What happened in the case of the Taylor Sisters 1993?

A

Guilty convictions overturned as the sensationalist media coverage may have influenced jurors

20
Q

Counter argument of impartiality

A
  • Jurors not connected with anyone involved in the case
  • Random selection should represent cross-section of society
  • 12 people cancel out each other’s prejudices
21
Q

Lack of understanding

A
  • Lack legal qualifications
  • No minimum standard for education
22
Q

Evidence for lack of understanding

A
  • Research shows doubts about 5% of convictions
  • Some jurors admitted having difficulty understanding cases
  • Although it’s only small amount of people, is concerning when on criminal matters it’s someone’s liberty at stake
23
Q

Counter argument of open system of justice

A
  • Allows the ordinary person to take part in administration of justice
  • Helps citizens feel empowered
  • Justice is seen to be done
24
Q

Conclusion

A

In conclusion, while there are many advantages to a jury (especially concerning an open system of justice), it can be argued that, due to the untrained nature of and the freedom given to the jury, they are a disadvantage to criminal cases