Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
+and - juries - Coggle Diagram
+and - juries
public confidence
jury considered one of fundamentals of democratic society - right to be tried by one's peers is a bastion of liberty against the state and has been supported by eminent judges
tradition of trial by jury is very old and people have confidence in impartiality and fairness of jury trial
bias
one or more jurors on panel ma have prejudice that can affect deliberations and therefore verdict - may be a bias against police or racial prejudice - if this is only shown in jury room there can be no appeal or investigation made
secrecy of decisions
jury discussion on the verdict takes place in secret - criminal offence (criminal justice and courts act 2015) to intentionally disclose or solicit or obtain any particulars of statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes case by members of a jury in course of their deliberations in any legal proceedings - due to secrecy, jurors free from pressure and allows them to ignore strict interpretation of law or judge's directions - suggested that people would be less willing to serve on a jury if discussions were made public - disclosure allowed if in interest of justice (reporting juror misconduct)
impartiality
jury should be impartial as they are not connected to anyone in case - process of random selection should result in cross-section of society and this should also lead to an impartial jury as they will cancel out each other's bias - jury is not case-hardened since they sit for only two weeks and are unlikely to try more than three or four cases in that time
extraneous material
appeal court will also inquire into events where extraneous material has been introduced into jury room - telephone calls in and out of jury room, papers mistakenly included in set of papers given by court to jury and information from internet
jury tampering
people connected to defendant try to bribe jury members/threaten them - s44 criminal justice act 2003 made an effort to prevent this
-
events outside jury room
appeal courts have always been prepared to investigate events outside jury room that might have affected the way a jury came to their decision
media influence
media coverage of the case may influence jurors - especially if it is a high-profile case where there has been a lot of publicity about police investigations
use of internet
found that at least one member of jury researched aspects of case on internet - judges usually direct jurors not to look at internet for information, but it seems that the use of internet research by jurors is becoming more common - may lead to prejudice - defendants have been known to upload highly person information regarding own behaviour - due to all this, Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 makes it a criminal offence with a max penalty of two years intentionally to research internet for information relevant to case - also offence to disclose information to other jurors
selection of juries
method of selecting from electoral register is open to criticism as it does not always give a representative sample of population: method excludes groups who are not eligible to vote (homeless, choose not to register), debatable whether those on lower incomes or unemployed are sufficiently represented
perverse decisions
juries refuse to convict - these decisions are seen as perverse (wrong) and there can be a loss of public confidence in fairness of jury system
jury equity
since juries not legal experts, they are not bound to follow precedents or acts, and do not have to give reasons for their verdict, they can decide on their own ideas of 'fairness'
representative nature
juries are representative of all sections of society rather than judges/lay magistrates - age limits so more likely to be a wide range of ages in jury - members usually wide range of social backgrounds in contrast to judiciary
open system of justice
use of jury is viewed as making legal system more open: justice is seen to be done as members of public involved in key role and trial takes place in public, keeps law clearer as points have to be explained to jury, enabling defendant to understand case more easily
high acquittal rates
juries criticised that there are too many acquittals - figure (60%) does not give a true picture of workings of juries as it includes cases where judge rules there is insufficient evidence - when these decisions are excluded, juries actually acquit 30% (acceptable)
-