Jurys...are they a suitable part of our justice system ?

Altered title to add clarity.

Thanks Max !...and for correcting my crap spelling...too early !

trial by a jury of our peers is a central part of our justice system. How could it not be suitable?

Originally posted by Babooshka
Thanks Max !...and for correcting my crap spelling...too early !

You're welcome.

And, having removed my mod cap, my own views.

Yes, I think juries still have a part to play in our criminal justice system. Where a person's guilt depends on one person's word against another, for instance, then the choice of whom to believe is arrived at by consensus. Without the the presence of a jury the decision would be made by a single person, the judge. By definition, the judge would be a member of the 'establishment' and therefore more likely to decide in favour of an establishment figure, e.g. someone with a 'profession' rather than a job.

Having served on a jury I can well imagine a person acting alone taking the word of the main witness whereas in the jury room we could talk through our reasons for not believing him/her.

However, in more complicated cases, such as fraud, I think there is a valid argument for a selected panel of experts rather than a jury.

There is a also, imo, a case for the equivalent of plea bargaining in the lower courts. If a defendant allows a magistrate to hear the case then he/she would face a lower sentence than if they opted for a full jury trial. Having opted for a jury trial then they should not then have the option to plead guilty.

I am sad to say that I was horrified at the calibre and disinterest of the jurors with whom I sat, and it completely destroyed all my faith in juries.

Originally posted by Babooshka
I am sad to say that I was horrified at the calibre and disinterest of the jurors with whom I sat, and it completely destroyed all my faith in juries.
No doubt that many of them had more pressing business? Shopping, watching TV, mowing the lawn etc etc.?
How many of them actually showed any sign that they had taken in all the evidence and were able to discuss it in a rational and intelligent manner?

Originally posted by Babooshka
I am sad to say that I was horrified at the calibre and disinterest of the jurors with whom I sat, and it completely destroyed all my faith in juries.

I've been called for jury service twice, and on both occasions my experience has been the exact opposite of yours (I'm glad to say!).

To be honest, I was very surprised by the degree of interest and involvement demonstrated by virtually everyone. That's not to say that everyone was equally articulate, and opinions certainly differed wildly on occasions, but the discussions were frank and intelligent, and I hope we came to the right conclusions.

It can never be perfect as a system, but I'd be hard pushed to come up with anything better.

Originally posted by Babooshka
I am sad to say that I was horrified at the calibre and disinterest of the jurors with whom I sat, and it completely destroyed all my faith in juries.
I think this could be improved by having jurors who actually want to be there, rather than forcing people to do jury duty. This way, people may take it more seriously.

Originally posted by Sidla
I think this could be improved by having jurors who actually want to be there, rather than forcing people to do jury duty. This way, people may take it more seriously.

In a way that is what you want, but the principle of 'self selecting' jurors, or 'professional' jurors is not one that should be encouraged IMO.

However, increasingly juries are being presented with increasingly complex evidence as Max points, especially in financial cases ,but also where genetic or statistical or otherwise scientific evidence is involved.

The french system of magistrates and investigating magistrates might be worth looking at although I have no direct experience of that.

Perhaps steering comittees of experts could be drafted in to advise jurors and answer their questions on technical aspects of evidence in lay terms.

Another bureaucratic layer, however, is not what the justice system needs either.

Fundamentally, however, would rather be judged by my peers than a single individual. Although 12 judges might be another way of doing it.

you have to volunteer for jury service, no-one is press ganged into it.

I think it was a tick box on the last thingamy that you had to fill in to be registered to vote.

Since when have you had to volunteer for jury service?

You don't get a choice, you're picked from random from the electoral register afaik. Certain people are exempt though:


There's not a lot you can do to avoid jury service, as your summons is the result of a random search of the electoral register.

Just because you receive a summons doesn't necessarily mean you will serve on a jury as more people are called than are actually needed. With your summons will be a form to return which assesses your eligibility - it's very difficult to prove you aren't eligible.



Certain categories of person are ineligible for jury service. These include people concerned with the administration of justice such as judges, barristers, solicitors, court staff and police officers, together with members of the clergy.

Other categories of person have the right to be excused from jury service if they so wish. These include MPs, people over 65, members of the armed forces, practising doctors, nurses, midwives, dentists, vets and chemists.

If you do not fall within one of these categories, then you may be excused jury duty if you can show that there is a good reason why you should be excused from attending.

However, there are provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill currently going through Parliament which will remove the above categories of people who are either ineligible or currently have the right to be excused. In effect this will mean that virtually every adult will be liable for jury service.


Both taken from http://www.bbc.co.uk/crime/support/

I've certainly never volunteered, but I've done it twice. You get a big fat wad of paperwork that makes it fairly clear that it's difficult to get out of - and actually, it's an extremely interesting thing to do.

Having been called for jury service though, there's no guarantee that you'll actually get a case. There are a number of random processes leading up to the selection of the actual 12 who sit in on a trial, though as you can be there for up to 2 weeks, you'll probably get something.

There is a great deal of sitting around with nothing to do though, so if you get called, take a lot of books!

I could have sworn there was a box to tick on the electoral register form that came around.