Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
To what extent is trial by jury an advantage - Coggle Diagram
To what extent is trial by jury an advantage
Disadvantages
Nobbling
Jurors may be bribed or intimidated by associates of the defendant into voting a certain way which may result in the jurors supporting or suggesting an opinion they do not agree with.
Because of the unanimous verdict, even though there are 12 people in a case, if only one person was voting for a guilty or non-guilty verdict, it would be possible to prevent the rest of the jury passing a verdict, so there is the majority verdict now.
Professionalism
The decision of the verdict is made in secret in a private room, meaning that how the decision is made is unknown to the judge (it could be a toss of a coin).
There may be a case of one of the jurors intimidating others into voting a certain way.
If there is a judge or a police officer present there may be bias to vote similarly or disimarly to them.
Media influence
Internet research by jurors is becoming more common, and jurors may find information that is irrelevant to the case but may influence their opinions, for example news about previous convictions.
The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 makes it a criminal offence with a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment to intentionally research for relevant information to the case using the internet because it has become an increasing problem.
High profile cases may have a lot of publicity, and the media may dramatize or alter the facts to gain readership as they are commercial, and this can influence jurors opinions meaning they go into the case prejudiced.
Bias
If a judge is present on the jury the rest of the jury may easily be influenced by them despite the fact that they need to come to a collective decision.
If there is a bias, it may only be shown in the jury room, meaning that an appeal or investigation cannot be made.
Jurors aren't trained not to have a bias and therefore may be prejudiced in a way that could affect the deliberations.
Inconvenience
Most people find it an inconvenience and unpleasant experience to sit in a jury, and there are many people that try to get excused from it.
Discretionary excusals
Advantages
Public confidence
Long-established system
Jury considered a fundamental requirement of a democratic society
Lord Devlin: 'the lamp that shows that freedom lives'
Michael Mansfield: 'the jury is the most democratic element of our judicial system
Jury equity
Decisions base don fairness; no reasons given
R v Ponting (1985) - jury refused to convict when his defence was that he acted in public interest
R v Kronlid (1996) - jury refused to convict when defence was lawful excuse
R v Randle and Pottle (1991) - jury refused to convict for helping spy escape from prison due to time lapse
Open Justice
Trial in public
Explaining issues to jury will help defendant understand law and process
Secret discussion
Jury free of pressure in making decisions
Impartiality
Members of jury not connected to the case
Not case hardened
Representative
Due to random selection, a wide range of ages and backgrounds - the jury will be representative
Alternatives
Trial by a single judge
Method of trial for the majority of civil cases in England and Wales.
Generally produces a fairer and more predictable result
Disadvantage: judges become case-hardened
Trial by a panel of judges
a Judge sitting with lay assessors
A mini-jury
To what extent is it an advantage?
Trial by jury is mostly a disadvantage not only for the people who have to act as jurors and find it inconvenient and unpleasant, but for the predictability of the law and for the fairness and justice of the legal system, as all these issues could be resolved by choosing a trial by a single judge with lay assessors, as this would prevent mistakes that could arise with 1 person having the sole responsibility but ensures that peoples time isn't wasted.
There are many advantages to having a jury as it is impartial, as the members of the jury are not connected to the case and are not case hardened (which sometimes is the case with single judges). Juries are representative, with people coming together from several different backgrounds making their judgement as fair as is possible. The trial is in public which so it is open justice, and also helps explain the issues to the jury
