Juries advantages and disadvantages Flashcards
Explain the advantage of Jury Equity
with the counter point
One advantage to juries is ‘jury equity’. Jurors can decide verdict according to what they think is morally right and wrong, they do not have to follow the law if they think it is unfair. For example, in R v Owen, D was almost certainly guilty. However the jury sympathised with D’s situation and felt he had been punished enough already, so found him not guilty despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This is good because juries can make fair/just decisions based on their conscience, whereas a judge would have to apply the law even if it lead to a bad decision.
Counter: However, by ignoring the law, the jury are making a perverse decision which defeats the point of the legal system if people can just choose to ignore it whenever they want to.
Explain the advantages secrecy and the counter
A second positive to the jury system is secrecy. The Contempt of Court Act 1981 makes it an offence to share discussions which take place in the jury room. They also do not need to reveal any reasons for their decision (Bushel’s case). Research shows that jurors do appear to discuss the evidence in detail and take the standard of proof very seriously (shown by higher acquittal rates in Crown Courts (about 60%) than Magistrates’ Courts). If discussions were to be made public, jurors may not want to be as open and honest with their thoughts and may feel pressured into a decision. Also, less people may want to serve as jurors in the first place if they will be judged for their verdict. Therefore secrecy makes the system more effective.
counter: However, this does mean that we do not know how juries are making their decisions, and could lead to unfairness in cases such as R v Young where a Ouija board was used to determine D’s guilt.
Explain the advantage of public confidence
Another advantage to using juries is that the public have a great deal of confidence in them. This is probably because it is a ‘trial by peers’ - D is judged by ordinary members of the public rather than just one legal expert (a judge). This means the jury are representative of society making the system more democratic. A survey by the Law Society showed 80% of people would trust a jury more than a judge or magistrates. This shows support and agreement with the justice system, suggesting it actually works.
Counter : However, it may be that this confidence is misplaced when we consider how easy it is for juries to be prejudiced by finding information online, such is in AG v Dallas where D shared information not hear din court to try and influence a decision.
Explain the positive of impartial
A final benefit to juries is that they are impartial. Jury members cannot know anyone involved in the case and will therefore not have any personal bias against those involved. For example, in R v Wilson and Sprason, the wife of the prison officer overseeing D was not allowed to sit on the jury for fear this may create bias. This should ensure that the decision is based purely on the evidence in court, and that justice is actually achieved in the way we want.
Counter :However, there is no way to tell if people have bias based on things like race or profession, and this could then impact a jury’s decision and deny D a fair trial.
Explain the disadvantage of perverse decisions
A disadvantage of the jury system is that they may make perverse decisions – ie ones that go against the law. This could be because they are ignoring the law and basing their decision on their conscience (jury equity), or could be due to lack of understanding of the case because they are lay people with no legal training. In R v Owen, D was almost definitely guilty (of a very serious crime) but was allowed to go free because the jury felt bad for him. This defeats the point of the law if the jury can just ignore it whenever they want. It also denies D the right to a fair trial (which is a human right).
Counter: However, it does allow for flexibility where D is technically guilty but not morally blameworthy and therefore not deserving of punishment, therefore juries can use their conscience to create ‘equity’.
Explain how secrecy could actually be an issue
A second problem is that jury discussions are done in secrecy. The Contempt of Court Act makes it an offence to share discussions which take place in the jury room. They also do not need to reveal any reasons for their decision (Bushel’s case). In R v Young, the jury used a Ouija board to ask V who the killer was. They then found D guilty based on this rather than any evidence in court (D’s conviction was quashed when this was discovered). The secrecy is then bad because we can’t tell if the jury are actually using the evidence to make a decision or random information/prejudice.
Counter: However, a positive thing about secrecy is that jurors should be more open and honest with their thoughts because they do not have the fear of being judges/pressured by the public.
explain how modern tec could be an issue
A disadvantage is that modern technology could bias the jury. Information about cases and Ds is widely available on the internet and may even be discussed on social networking sites, but juries are only meant to o use the evidence in court under their oath/affirmation. In 2010, 12% of jurors in high profile cases admit using the internet. This was the problem in AG v Dallas and has led to the Criminal Courts and justice Act 2015. It is hard to stop the jury using the internet at home (even with the new Act) and not all info online is reliable, meaning such details may prejudice the jury.
`Counter: Despite this problem though, the public still trust juries more than magistrates, and show a great deal of confidence in the decisions they make (with 80% of people preferring a trial by jury).
Explain how bias may be a problem
One problem with juries is that members may have bias based on the race or profession of the witnesses/D. This may be because some people find certain jobs more or less honest (ie a priest compared to a salesman), or have prejudice against other races. In Sander v UK, it was shown that members of a jury were making openly racist remarks and jokes about the defendant in their trial, and it was held this went against D’s right to a fair trial. This is a problem because it means justice is not being achieved and it is hard to know if people hold these biases.
Counter: However, we can try to minimise the bias by not allowing anyone connected to the case personally to sit on the jury and this is why both the prosecution and defence can challenge for cause.
