The Role of Juries in the UK Criminal Justice System Case Study

Examining Jury Equity, Bias, and Representation in Criminal Trials

If you want to be successful in your assignments and improve your grades, use our case study at Native Assignment Help. Our team of proficient assignment help experts is knowledgeable and experienced enough to produce outstanding papers that meet academic standards. Thus, come together with us at Native Assignment Help for sure success in everything.

Introduction: The Role of Juries in the UK Criminal Justice System

Juries have played a crucial role in the UK's criminal justice system for centuries, with the power to protect liberty and inject common sense into criminal proceedings. However, the validity of the ‘Little Parliament’ label has been debated. In this essay, we will critically discuss the validity of this statement by examining the benefits and disadvantages of ‘jury equity’, the issue of juror bias, and the representativeness of juries in society. The report would signify the importance of criminal justice and its alignment with other factors. It would critically discuss the disadvantages and benefits of jury equity. It would begin with a description of juror bias and its issues. Further, this would signify the ways in which the representative juries are members of society. Juries are a vital element of criminal justice for assuring that the verdicts are not merely to be a verdict by legal aspects. They are the representatives of the community for being able to include diversified perspectives for analysing all kinds of views in a substantial manner. They are ordinary people who are obligated to safeguard the laws and policies of the state. They come up with fair and justified decisions for the general good of all.

Critically discuss the benefits and disadvantages of jury equity

Jury equity could be considered the competency of a jury in order to return a verdict as per their consciousness. The jury could be considered an outcome of the ancient thoughts of rights, which had extreme ways of thinking processes. It has an objective to maintain and uplift the dimensions of liberty among people in a comprehensive manner. This is highly necessary because the jury is required to showcase rationality in coming up with a specific verdict. As opined by Wilson et al. (2020), it could be comprehended that free and fair decisions would be neutral in their approach. Some of the instances could pave a way for better outcomes. On the other hand, there could be verdicts that are unpredictable and inconsistent. This is done without the strictness of the law and its adherence in significant manners. Some of the prominent jury equity have included the activists working towards the attainment of the best environment as well as peace. Some of the cases have been generalised as the defendants are represented in the court. It is often regarded that jury equity is valuable as, despite the passing of judgments by ordinary people, they are exclusively coherent with the justice system.

Jury equity has some drawbacks because of its distinctive character. One such debatable issue is that it undervalues the role of the jury system. Besides, it underestimates the jurors who have a legal duty by taking sworn oaths for protecting the ethics of the verdict. As stated by Gobert (2019), they have made sure to abide by the laws and consider valuable pieces of evidence for the same. However, the jury has intended to overlook the presence of pieces of evidence in some cases. An example has been seen in Owen's case, in which the evidence was neglected by the jury rather the defendant was proven to be non-guilty. As opined by Warner et al. (2019), there has been the involvement of personal grudges instead of instances of peace or environment-related. This might lead the jury to function primarily or lose all their actions in sequential patterns. As a result of which, the jury would not be able to discuss the official causes for the decisions prominently. Another major disadvantage is that the jury is recognised as an expensive affair which would be shaped as a model of anarchism. It has been exploitative in nature to some extent. This is because there might be a loss of professional criminals at the expense of having to be bored by the general public. In fact, it has also become a time-consuming activity which has huge problems for being able to be continued.

One of the key benefits of ‘jury equity’ is that juries have the power to deliver a verdict that is in accordance with justice and fairness, even if it may not be in line with the strict application of the law (Willmott et al. 2021). This approach is particularly useful in cases where the law may be rigid or inflexible, allowing juries to consider mitigating circumstances that may not have been considered by the legal system.

However, the use of ‘jury equity’ can also have some disadvantages. One disadvantage is that it can lead to inconsistency in verdicts, with different juries delivering different verdicts for similar cases (Warner et al. 2019), This inconsistency can create uncertainty and lack of trust in the criminal justice system. Additionally, some argue that ‘jury equity’ can undermine the rule of law, as it allows juries to ignore the law and make decisions based on their personal views of justice.

Critically discuss the issue of juror bias

Jury bias in general terms could be gathered as the implications of the experiences brought by the jury. It would affect the comprehension of the decisions that would be inclined towards one side. They either do it consciously or unconsciously which would affect the decisions. However, it is also true that these instances do not take place all the time as some members try to regulate the balance and neutrality in coming up with the decisions. There are basically three types of jury bias which have led to the growth of major problems related to the domain. Some of them are pre-trial bias, bias from expert witnesses, and cognitive bias.

Pre-trial bias could be defined as the number of variations in the individuals which would shape the verdicts attained by jurors. The processing generally has a massive gap in interpretation and the preconceptions of the facts which would describe the biases and the viewpoints. On the other hand, the opinions that have been revolving around the half and wrong facts and information. This type of expert witness would be losing their credibility and accountability with the jury in a substantial time and manner. Some of the common types of biases are based on race, gender, religion, place of birth and many more. They often come to a point that would affect the victim in a harmful manner. These are aligned with decisions that are highly emotional and volatile in nature.

Jury bias is one of the major issues that is interlinked with the criminal justice system. This is because it has been able to affect the results of a trial for understanding the factors in all manners. According to Murphy and Burton (2020), these challenges could be mitigated by the involvement of all the parties by uplifting the mechanism of a free and fair trial. Some of the causes for the initiation of the problems connected to juror bias are subjectivity, different viewpoints, varied past experiences, and the influence of the media. This is very much essential for the legal system of the land for reducing juror bias and ensuring justice at a minimal cost and time for all.

The main feature associated with juror bias has rendered unfair and subjective verdicts that have at times brought down the integrity and dignity of the trial process. The issues could be addressed by the strategies of accelerating diversity and incrementing the education of jurors (Su, 2020). This would smoothen the overall structure in a swift manner. The system of the biased jury would be able to perceive that there take unfair conviction. One of such cases is notable in R v Abdroik of which assessed the challenges pertaining to the composition of a jury (House of Lords, 2023). There has been desire to serve polices and solicitors who are employed by the serving of a trial. The problems lie in the partiality that has been done by the committee for coming up with effective solutions. As a result of which the judicial system of the country would undergo a phase of decline.

The issue of juror bias is a significant concern in the criminal justice system. Jurors are expected to be impartial and make decisions based solely on the evidence presented in court. However, jurors may be influenced by their personal biases, which can impact their ability to make objective decisions.

Juror bias can take many forms, including racial, gender, or socio-economic biases. For example, studies have shown that racial bias can lead to jurors being more likely to convict individuals of colour, even in the absence of strong evidence. Gender bias can also impact verdicts, with male jurors more likely to acquit individuals accused of sexual assault (Murphy and Burton, 2020). To address the issue of juror bias, courts attempt to select jurors who are likely to be impartial and free of bias. However, it can be challenging to identify and eliminate bias entirely, and some argue that the use of juries may perpetuate systemic biases that already exist in society.

Critically discuss how representative juries are of society

The democratic framework of some of the nations has prioritized that there should be participation by the community to minimise the rates of criminal law. This is better for upgrading the administration that works in relation to law and order in a holistic manner. As mentioned by Stirk (2022), constitutional rights when provided to a member of a group would protect the harassment by the state and their agencies such as judges, police as well as prosecutors. It is also considered that some of the groups are not duly represented in the jury adequately. Some people who are of colour, women, the LGBTQ community, and economically backward people are not sufficiently demonstrated. If there would be a representation of people from these backgrounds, they would be able to communicate their issues and result in better outcomes for their improvements.

A citizens' jury is a group of randomly selected citizens who represent a cross-section of society and are tasked with deliberating on a specific issue. A petit jury, on the other hand, is a group of randomly selected citizens who sit in judgment during a trial. Both types of juries are meant to be representative of society's peers and reach collective decisions through informed deliberation. The citizens' jury model is a way of ensuring that the only jurors are a randomly selected group of people who represent the wider community. According to Seidman Diamond, and Salerno (2020), two citizen juries were formed to deliberate on climate change, and their recommendations had a significant impact on policy-making.

However, it is essential to know that jurors put in considerable effort to provide informed recommendations as they serve in an advisory capacity. They receive 16 reimbursements for their time and effort, but this may not be enough for those with prior commitments on their first day of service (Anwar et al. 2022). The jury selection process should be carefully monitored to ensure that it is unbiased and diverse. Once selected, jurors must wait for their trial date to begin. This wait time can be difficult for those with prior commitments or who rely on their employer's policy regarding time off for jury service.

The countries like England, and Wales have specific legal systems. The jury has the right to The way jurors are selected can also impact diversity; in some jurisdictions, potential jurors sign up voluntarily or are delivered jurors from voter registration lists. However, this can result in a lack of diversity as social groups may not participate equally in these processes (Street et al. 2021). Additionally, the way that jurors deliberate differs between individual cases and even within the same case. Efforts to educate the public on the importance of serving on a jury and improving appearance rates can increase inclusiveness and representativeness injuries. Media coverage and potential consequences for not serving on a jury can also make people more aware of their civic duty. There has been another case which is based upon the right to a free trial. Sander V the United Kingdom is one of them (Council of Europe, 2023). They have claimed that the jury has been partial on the basis of prejudice of racism. It is because they have not heard the cases by the impartial legal body of tribunal. However, improving appearance rates should not be the only approach to creating an effective pool for juries.

The representativeness of juries in society is another important consideration when evaluating the validity of the ‘Little Parliament’ label. Juries are intended to be made up of ordinary citizens, chosen at random from the community, to provide a diverse range of perspectives on the case (Anwar et al. 2022). However, the representativeness of juries has been questioned. For example, individuals who are not fluent in English, who have criminal records, or who have disabilities may be excluded from serving on a jury. Additionally, some argue that juries may not be representative of the wider population, as certain demographics, such as young people, may be less likely to be selected for jury duty.

To address these concerns, some have suggested changes to the jury selection process, such as using a more diverse range of selection criteria or increasing the compensation for jurors (Street et al. 2021). These changes could help to increase the representativeness of juries and ensure that they truly reflect the community they are intended to represent.

We are experts in the law field, and at Native Assignment Help, we assist you in becoming proficient in law. With us, you get perfectly well-reasoned and researched law assignment help. Of course, we do not go wrong when it comes to criminal law, constitutional law, or any other branch of the legal system; we have whatever you want in your undergraduate degree program.

Conclusion

It could be concluded that there are different benefits and disadvantages related to jury equity. It is defined as the conscious planning for taking decisions for upgrading the notion of liberty among people. These are the groups of people who take decisions on the basis of ideas and notions of these different people who represent communities in varied manners. It has been noticed that people from races, women, poor sections and others are inadequately represented. This has been initiated with jury bias which means that the members usually take subjective ideas on the specific group or a person revolving around their background. It has been seen that the members often try to take revenge because of their decisions. Finally, it could be observed that there are representations from the different sections of society.

It could be further deduced that the juries have played a vital role in the UK's criminal justice system for centuries; the validity of the ‘Little Parliament’ label is subject to debate. The jury equity has both the advantages as well as disadvantages as they are integral to the inclusion of specific members of a society. These are helpful in assuring justice and righteous behaviour with everyone desiring the same from the jury. However, it is found that there has been certain biasness in the representation of the society such as women, LGBTQ, racially different and economically backward. Some of these instances have been found in the case laws such as R v Adroikof who have faced issues because of partial behaviour and composition of the jury. Sander V the United Kingdom is another one as it has some other issues that have been hindered due to the promotion of diversity and mechanising with the legal systems. Overall, while the ‘Little Parliament’ label may not be entirely accurate, juries remain a crucial part of the criminal justice system, providing a vital check on the power of the state and ensuring that justice is delivered fairly and impartially.

References

Anwar, S., Bayer, P. and Hjalmarsson, R., (2022). Unequal jury representation and its consequences.American Economic Review: Insights,4(2), pp.159-174.

Council of Europe. Sander v. UK (2000) 33 E.H.R.R. 44, para. 22. 43 [1990]. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/docx/?library=ECHR&id=001-58835&file=CASE%20OF%20SANDER%20v.%20THE%20UNITED%20KINGDOM.docx&logEvent=False

Evans, R., (2022). The consensus rule: judges, jurors, and admissibility hearings. Vill. L. Rev., 67, p.883.

Gobert, J., (2019). Justice, democracy and the jury. Routledge.

House of Lords. (2023). R v Abdroikov - [2007] UKHL 37 - [2007] 1 WLR 2679. Available at: https://www.jade.io/article/256639 [Accessed on 25th April 2023]

Murphy, R. and Burton, F., (2020). English Legal System. Routledge.

Seidman Diamond, S. and Salerno, J.M., (2020). Reasons for the disappearing jury trial: Perspectives from attorneys and judges. La. L. Rev., 81, p.119.

Stirk, S., (2022). The Future of Lay Participation in the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales: A Critical Assessment (Doctoral dissertation, LJMU).

Street, J., Fabrianesi, B., Adams, C., Flack, F., Smith, M., Carter, S.M., Lybrand, S., Brown, A., Joyner, S., Mullan, J. and Lago, L., (2021). Sharing administrative health data with private industry: A report on two citizens' juries.Health Expectations,24(4), pp.1337-1348.

Su, A., (2020). A proposal to properly address implicit bias in the jury.Hastings Women's LJ,31, p.79.

Thomas, C., (2020). The 21st-century jury: Contempt, bias and the impact of jury service. Criminal Law Review, (11), pp.987-1011.

Warner, K., Davis, J., Spiranovic, C., Cockburn, H. and Freiberg, A., (2019). Why sentence? Comparing the views of jurors, judges and the legislature on the purposes of sentencing in Victoria, Australia. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 19(1), pp.26-44.

Willmott, D., Boduszek, D., Debowska, A. and Hudspith, L., (2021). Jury decision making in rape trials: An attitude problem.Forensic psychology,8, pp.94-119.

Wilson, S., Rutherford, H., Storey, T., Wortley, N. and Kotecha, B., (2020). English legal system. Oxford University Press.