Disadvantages and Criticisms of the Jury System
While juries play a crucial role in the UK criminal justice system, there are several notable drawbacks and criticisms of their use.
One significant concern is the potential lack of true representativeness in jury selection. Critics argue that the process may exclude certain groups, such as the homeless or low-income individuals, leading to juries that don't accurately reflect the broader population.
Highlight: When juries refuse to convict in cases where the evidence seems clear, these "perverse" decisions can undermine public confidence in the fairness of the system.
The secrecy surrounding jury deliberations, while intended to protect jurors, can also be problematic. Since no reasons are given for verdicts, it's impossible to know if a jury fully understood the case or reached their decision for the correct reasons. This secrecy also prevents investigations into potential misconduct within the jury room.
Example: In R v Young (Stephen) (1995), a murder conviction was quashed when it was discovered that some jurors had used a Ouija board to "contact" the victims during deliberations.
Bias among jurors is another potential issue. Individual prejudices against defendants can influence deliberations and verdicts, but these biases are difficult to detect or address if they only manifest in the jury room.
Media influence, particularly in high-profile cases, can potentially sway jurors' opinions before the trial even begins. The increasing use of the internet by jurors to research cases independently is also a growing concern, as it may introduce prejudicial information not presented in court.
Quote: In R v West (1996), the Court of Appeal noted that if intense media coverage alone prevented fair trials, it would mean that "allegations of murder that were sufficiently horrendous so as to inevitably shock the nation, the accused could not be tried."
These disadvantages highlight the complex challenges in balancing the benefits of the jury system with the need for fair and consistent justice.
