Lori Steinbach | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted July 20, 2013 at 12:19 AM (Answer #1)

dislike1like
Countries all over the world use some form of a jury system, presumably
because they have not found a better way to consistently ensure that
defendants receive the fairest possible trial; however, that does not mean
the system is without flaws. There are both advantages and disadvantages
to a jury system.
The advantages of a jury system include the fact that the public generally
accepts jury verdicts, and lay people, their "peers," are more trusted, often,
than judges. A jury is, in theory, unbiased because it is not part of the
justice system, and jurors are allowed to apply common sense and local
values to the evidence and facts of the case. It is an efficient system, more
than eight hundred years old, and it provides citizens the opportunity to
actually be involved in their communities.
The disadvantages of a jury system include the vetting process, which
precludes the random selection of peers, and the inability to assess jury
bias after the verdict has been determined. Jurors are human and they
make mistakes; even worse, jurors might come to a hasty verdict to suit
their own desires to be finished with a case (especially in very long trials).
Jurors might also be easily influenced by presentation and showmanship
over substance, and they are not likely to have a complete understanding
of every point of law raised in the case.
It is clear that there are risks to having a jury trial; however, it is part of a
system of justice, at least in America, which has generally worked and will
undoubtedly continue to be the law of the land.
For a more extensive list of advantages and disadvantages, refer to the link
sixthformlaw link below.
Sources:
http://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/mod1/1_5_lay_people/1...
Lori Steinbach
The Pros and Cons of Juries and how much a Court
should Rely on them
By: Maria C Collins
Published: May 27, 2013




The English legal system, on which most English language countries based their legal systems,
guarantees that defendants accused of a serious crime for which, if found guilty, he could lose his liberty,
has a right to trial by a jury of his peers. A debate has raged for generations within the English legal
system as whether juries are a good or bad thing in the legal system. There are bothadvantages and
disadvantages to having juries. The use of juries in the English legal system has been curtailed in recent
years and now juries are rarely used in the civil system and in the criminal system, a jury trial is only
available in serious cases. In the English court system Magistrates courts deal with over 95% of criminal
cases.
Many people do not understand what a jurys role in a court case actually is. A jury is there to find on
matters of fact only, jury members are told to use their ordinary judgment to decide, on the facts, whether
the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial Judge is there to decide matters of law and
direct the court, including the jury, accordingly. They hear the evidence from both prosecution and
defence, and must decide only on the facts that they hear in court. Judges warn juries that if they doubt the
defendants guilt, they must find the defendant not guilty. An accused is innocent until a court finds him
guilty. It is not for the defendant to prove his innocence, but for the prosecution to prove him guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt.
There are both advantages and disadvantages to the jury system. British politicians would have the public
believe that juries make the justice system expensive. This is clearly not so, in England and Wales
Magistrates courts deal with 95% of all criminal cases, there are no juries in Magistrates courts. Only 5%
of criminal cases go to the higher courts. When a criminal case reaches the higher courts if the defendant
pleads guilty to the charge of which he is accused, no jury is necessary and in fact only 1 % of criminal
cases actually require a jury. Those cases, requiring a jury, are trials on the most serious charges and,
being only 1% of the total criminal cases in England and Wales, they are not a great cost in the whole
criminal justice system.
Juries are ordinary people and they are independent of the police, judiciary and the establishment. They
are there to represent the public and as a bastion of freedom, to redress the balance between the defendant
and the might of the state. They also are a barometer of Public opinion, ordinary honest citizens applying
local knowledge and values, who for the most part take their civic duty very seriously and do their best. It
is important that there is public involvement in the law. Character and honesty are discernible by ordinary
people and do not require legally trained people to discover, and it is important that they are there,
because those who see criminals and criminal cases can get cynical and jaded, jury members judge. The
Public has confidence in the jury system and because it does, the majority of people respect the law.
Many critics believe that juries do not understand the burden of proof, however, the mere fact that juries
lower the burden of proof in paedophile and child murder cases show that they understand the burden of
proof very well. Many Judges believe that juries generally return the correct verdict and there are very
few appeals from jury trials.
Juries make their deliberations protected from outside pressure and influence. Some critics believe that
because no one knows how a jury arrived at their decision, there is no assurance that they reached it for
the right reasons, R v Young 1993 The Ouija Board Case. However, the few cases that occur and the
very fact that, in this case and others, a juror was so appalled at the actions of other jury members, that
s/he brought to attention, proves that most jury members take their duty seriously and police one another.
Other critics cite the fact that jury members do not have legal knowledge or training, but they denigrate
their own argument, since juries find on the facts of the case and must obey the judge on questions of law
and the point of juries is that they do not have legal training, but bring their ordinary common sense to the
laws operation. Juries make justice more open and the jury system gives the public a stake in the law and
its operation.
Critics also cite that juries acquit more often than a judge sitting alone, however, judges direct juries that
they must find the prosecutions case proven beyond a reasonable doubt, if a jury acquits a particular
person, it is because the prosecution did not prove its case. In other words, the fault is not that of the jury
system, but of prosecuting counsels.
Juries can of course return verdicts that the government or legal system sees as perverse, such asR V
Ponting 1984 where a civil servant leaked information to Member of Parliament, Tam Dyell on the
sinking of the Belgrano, a ship sunk by British forces during the Falklands conflict. The information
proved that a Government Minister was misleading Parliament. Despite the fact that there was no public
interest defence at the time for civil servants, in such a case, and the judge, all but, directed the jury to
convict, equating the public interest with the governments interest, the jury returned a not guilty verdict.
The case is one where the jury brought their own common sense to the case and decided accordingly, a
court composed of lawyers would have convicted, which in this case would have been unjust and wrong.
There certainly was both a public and political interest in the public knowing the true facts and that a
government minister was misleading Parliament and a further public interest in the Public knowing that
the Government was using the law to try to cover political wrongdoing.
The jury system, in England and Wales has been restricted in recent years. Juries now rarely sit in Civil
law cases and only in the most serious criminal cases. It is right that where a persons liberty is at stake,
s/he has the right to trial by jury. As the Ponting case amply demonstrates, the jury system works to avoid
injustice and ensures that even the most powerful people are held to account for wrongdoing and prevents
the state and the government using the law unjustly. There may be a case for using jury members with
specialist knowledge in particularly complicated cases such as convoluted fraud cases, however for the
most part twelve ordinary members of the public serve the justice system very well. The jury system acts
within the English legal system as one part of the checks and balances within the English constitution to
prevent injustice to individual citizens and, by providing the public with a role within the law the jury
system ensures that most British people respect the law and believe in the criminal justice system. The
jury system has lasted for more than 800 years if it is not broken do not fix it.
Jury equity - Kronlids case: 3 women broke into an aeroplane factory and
destroyed planes being made for the indonesian government, causeing millions
of pounds worth of damage. The jury found the women not guilty as they agreed
with the act being wrong - a fair judgement.
Open system of justice - Lord Devlin said: 'A jury is the lamp over society to
show freedom lives'
Balance against state interferance - Harder for individuals of the government
to bribe a whole jury rather than just one judge, making the overall process fairer.
Secrecy - Jury do not need to give a reason for thier judgement.
Impartiality - Views and opinions are weighed up equally, as a jury is not case-
hardened.
Privacy - decision is made in a private room to no pressure on the jury from
members of the court e.g the defendant or the judge pushing for time.
Disadv:
Training - no training is given to the jury so may not be able to deal with certain
cases or situations.
Legal advisor - too much pressure put on the legal advisor. The jury may not be
making the decision themselves making the process unfair to the defendant.
Media - Every person charged with a criminal offence has the right to a fair trial -
Human rights act 1998. If the jury are likely to be swayed by excessive media
coverage, it affects the defendants right to a fair trial, then the trial becomes
illegal and the court must do something to prevent the defendant from being
unfairly tried.
Answered Mon 7th January, 2013 @ 21:54 by Zoe
Magistrates & Juries - LAS-2
Charlotte Mitchell-Dunne

Question A- what part is played by juries and lay magistrates in the resolution of civil
and criminal cases? (40 marks)
In this essay I am going to explain what juries and lay magistrates are and what their
roles are within the current legal system. I will start by examining what a jury is and
the role it undertakes, then I will divide this into two main areas, one dealing with
jurys role within the civil courts and the other with its role within the criminal courts.
Finally I will briefly explain the restrictions on peoples entitlement to a jury and the
situations in which it is at the clients discretion whether to have a jury present or not.
After this I will deal with the section on magistrates by dividing it into two sections
and explaining each in turn paying particular attention to their roles within the legal
system. I will also explain their legal entitlements as a member of the judiciary and
the process in which they are selected
What is a Jury?
Juries have been used in the legal system for over 1000 years originally they were
used for local knowledge and As law third edition explains that historically a jury was
made up of a group of people who either knew the defendant or victim, had seen the
incident that took place or lived near where the allegation was made.
This is obviously the reverse situation today as the jury must now be anonymous and
amorphous-meaning they are unknown to those taking part in the trial. Before 1854 all
common law actions were tried by jury, but the law was changed in 1854 allowing
parties to be able to choose whether to have a jury therefore reducing the number of
sitting juries this changed again in 1933 with the administration of justice act further
limiting the use of juries, by removing them from most contact cases and cases which
contain complex information. Now Jurys only sit in about 1% of all cases. As law by
Elliott and Quinn explains that a jury is supposed to reflect a wide variety of society.
It explains that the simplistic view of their job is that they produce a verdict of either
guilty or not guilty based on pure fact the judge will advise the jury on sections of the
law and from this advise they must reach a verdict. It is said that a jury is vital for an
effective democracy this point is stressed by Lord Devlin who explains that juries are
the lamps that show that freedom lives. When a jury reaches a decision it must be
unanimous although in some case the judge will accept the common example of a 10-
2 or 11-1 majority. This ensures a fair decision.
Juries are made up of 12 members in the crown and high court and 8 members in
the county court. Jury members are selected from the voters role and summonses are
sent out to these people, they must then go through a stage of vetting which checks
that they have no recent criminal convictions, as people sentenced to five years or
more imprisonment are disqualified for life from doing jury service.
No one is exempt from doing jury service unless they are disqualified or excused
therefore everyone must attend. The only qualification to be a jury member is that you
are between 18 and 70, are registered to vote and are a resident in the UK.

A jury's role in the criminal courts
As law by Elliott and Quinn explains that despite the symbolic importance of a juries
in the criminal justice system, they actually only operate in a minority of cases. The
criminal cases system is split up into three categories summery only offences-which
the magistrate courts try, indictable offences- tried in the crown court and either way
cases which can be heard in either the magistrates court or the crown court, this is
down to the discretion of the defendant and it is said that defendants prefer to have a
trial by jury, as they are less likely to convict, as it is said that with juries it is easier to
prove doubt. Juries only decide cases in the crown court and in a large number of
cases the defendant pleads guilty leaving no need for a jury, this is why only around
30,000 trials are heard. The jurys role in a crown court case is to find the defendant
guilty or not guilty, with the judge deciding the points of law and the jury deciding on
the facts. The jury is asked to consider that the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable
doubt. This decision takes place in secret and the jury are not asked the reasonings
for their verdict, this ensures freedom of discussion and protects the jury from outside
influences, as explained before the jury must come to a majority verdict. Lord Devlin
explains that the jury system in criminal cases has the best blend of logic and
common sense as he believes a jury is surely there best instrument in deciding a
witnesses credibility and believes they deliver a just verdict rather than a verdict
coming from one person. He explains that in a criminal case a jury has to make four
decisions these are, firstly whether the prosecution has proved its case against the
defendant, secondly they must ensure the independence and quality of the judges,
thirdly they give protection against law that an ordinary person may find oppressive
meaning they must consider whether the punishment they will face is just for the
crime they committed and finally they must make sure that the investigating officers
have conducted a fair investigation-meaning they must make sure that the
investigating officers are not bulling the defendant.
A jurys role in a civil case
When a jury is used in a civil case they must not only decide who wins the case and
must also decide the amount of settlement to be rewarded. The complete A-z law
handbook explains that in 1981 the Supreme Court act decided that juries had the right
to trial cases in defamation, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and fraud. The
English legal system by Jacqueline martin explains that all these cases involve
character or reputation and it is for this reason that a jury is used, as it is important to
obtain a wider view to deliver a fair verdict. It is also possible to ask for a jury in a
personal injury claim dealt with by the Queens Bench Division of the high court, but
it must be remembered that these cases are very rare as they often involve complex
details, which most jurys could not make an informed decision on. There have been
many cases in which the decision has been made that a jury should not sit these
include Ward v James and Singh v London underground. Very few civil cases are
tried using juries as they are often more complex than criminal cases and most civil
cases are dealt with by lay magistrates.
What are lay magistrates?
A Lay- person in the context of a lay magistrate is a person with no legal
qualifications or training in law. Their purpose is to provide experience of society and
ensure that the common peoples values are represented when delivering a verdict.
Most magistrates are lay magistrates and they are also referred to as justices of the
peace. There are roughly 30,000 lay magistrates sitting on the bench and they usually
sit in threes but section 49 of the crime and disorder act 1998 allows single
magistrates to exercise certain powers when administering justice. All magistrates are
appointed by the Lord Chancellor on the advice of the local advisory committees for
each area. To become a Lay magistrate a person must be between the ages of 18 to 65
but this requirement has only recently come into place, with the requirement being
dropped from 21 to 18 in 2003. A lay magistrate must have six key qualities to enable
them to be appointed, these ensure that the magistrate is of sound mind and
judgement. Most magistrates are nominated by groups such as trade unions but a
person can nominate themselves to partake in the role. The maximum sentence a lay
magistrate can give if up to 6 months imprisonment and a 5000 fine. Therefore there
power is restricted enabling them to only deal with certain cases. It is said that
magistrates are involved in 97% of cases whether this is in the pulmonary stages or
the final sentencing; therefore it is clear to see that they play a vital role within the
legal system.
Lay magistrates role within the criminal court
Much like juries a lay magistrates role is mainly in the criminal courts. As Law
explains that magistrates conduct summary trials-these are minor cases only dealt with
within the magistrates courts, they also sentence defendants who plead of are found
guilty and hold committal proceedings in indictable offences-these are offences of a
serious nature and finally they deal with hybrid offences, when a defendant has asked
to have his case heard in the crown court. They will also deal with cases such as bail
applications, remand hearings and committal proceedings. They will be advised by a
court clerk on the matters of the law and from this they are expected to make an
informed decision and deliver an apt verdict and sentence. As explained before the
magistrate can only sentence a person to the maximum of 6 months imprisonment and
fine them up to 5000m pounds, but the criminal justice bill of 2002 had provisions to
extend magistrates sentencing power to a year or up to 15 month, therefore it is worth
noting that this may be the case in future years.
Lay magistrates role within the civil court
A magistrates role within the civil courts consists of licensing and family matters and
they often deal with some debt work. The complete A-z laws handbook explains that
most civil work includes issuing licences for pub and restaurants to sell alcohol,
enforcing payment of council tax and hearing family cases about custody of children
but not divorce. They will also deal with debt owed on utilities and non payment of
TV licences. Some specially qualified lay magistrates will deal with issues within the
youth courts; these will be most crimes except for those of a serious nature. They will
try 10 to 17 year olds.
Conclusion
In conclusion both juries and lay magistrates play a key role within the administration
of justice in this country. They both have a part to play in civil and criminal system
but their role is obviously wider in the criminal court system
.......................................................

Question B - Examine critically the arguments for and against the use of either Juries
or Lay Magistrates in the English Legal system. (6Qmarks)

In this essay I am going to present the arguments for and against the use of juries in
the English legal system. I will divide my essay into two main sections the first
dealing with the advantages of juries within the English legal system and the second
dealing with the disadvantages. Within these areas I will also include sub headings
breaking down each argument fully. 1 will also use cases and media example to
support my argument and finally I will explain some alternative to trial by jury.

The advantages of juries \within the English legal system
It could be said that there are many advantages to having a jury in the English legal
system and it must be considered that li is the English legal system has adopted juries
into their judiciary system for over 1000 years therefore it must be considered that it
must have weighty benefits.

Public participation
It could be said that public participation is one of the main focal point for having a
jury in the English legal system. AS Law by Elliot and Quinn explains that a jury
allows ordinary people to participate in the administration of justice meaning that the
verdict is seen as a representation of societies view rather than the view of just one
member of the judiciary system. It explains that Lord Dennin exclaimed that jury
service gives ^ordinary folk their finest lesson in citizenship^fPublie participation also
allows the defendant to be judge by their peers; this often raises confidence in the
legal system. Having a jury present may be considered to be a fairer system. It should
be taken into consideration that the defendant and prosecution will always seek justice
therefore they may believe that the elitist judiciary system made up of qualified
people from roughly the .same back ground may not be able to provide them with this,
this is why public participation is needed as it ensure that justice is not only done but
it is seen to be done.

Certainty
Juries provide certainly, as they only have to deliver a guilty or not guilty verdict.
This leaves no room for confusion and cannot be misinterpreted therefore the decision
is not open for dispute. This is very important as it ensure there can be no grounds for
appeal on the juries verdict unless it was made for the wrong reasons and this is very
hard to find out as the juries decision is made in secret. Although a juries decisions
was questioned in the case R Vs Young. In this case the jury stayed overnight in a
hotel, as they had not reached a verdict the during the day, while the staying at the
hotel members of the jury used an ouija board to decide the defendants verdict. The
case was obviously quashed as the court fell able to inquire into the event as they had
taken place out side of the court. Obviously this [s only one example of a rare case
and the likelihood of a challenge to the jury's verdict is very small.
Jurors are able to judge on conscience
The fact that jurors are able to judge according to conscience is strengthen by the fact
that they do not have to explain thew reasoning for reaching a certain verdict. This
means they are given protection from billing and oppression some limes exercised by
the prosecution, therefore enabling them to make a fair decision based on their beliefs.
The Bushell's case of 1670 also makes sure that juries can be forced into a verdict as it
established that the jury are the sole judges of the fact and that they cannot be
penalised for having a different view to the judges. I believe the fact that the juries
have the ultimate right to decide a verdict also protects them in certain ways against
oppression or bulling.
Jurors come from a wider cross section of society
Jurors come from a wider cross section of society
The fact that jurors arc said to have come from a wide section of society enables
should enable them to give the views of society as a whole. This also ensures that the
jury are able to bring knowledge and experience of different backgrounds as they are
thought to have different Life experiences to the usual stereotypical member of the
judicial system, who are believed to be a white males from a middle class background,
who attended private schooling. It could also be argued that the jury could sympathize
with the both parties is the case as the jury would have local knowledge and
understanding of their areas problems.
Twelve opinions are better than one
The statement twelve opinions are better that one must be taken into consideration
when analysing the advantages and disadvantages of juries in the English legal
system. Ii must be taken into consideration that the public and the defendant would
see the decision as a fairer as it is made by 12 people rather than just one person.
Independence of a jury
I believe that it is important to consider that when a case Is not decided by the jury,
the verdict is delivered by a member of the judiciary who are organised and
orchestrated by the slate. I believe this shows a clear advantage of having a jury as
allows the verdict to be impartial and seem fairer to the parties involved. This leads to
public confidence in the judiciary system.
Impartiality
Most juries should be impartial, as they are not usually connected to other cases. As
the jury is selected from a cross section of society, this ensures that extreme views
will cancel each other out. This is seen to be fairer as it provides a fairer which shows
a balance in opinion rather than a verdict than is made by one person who could have
extreme views, therefore giving an unbalanced opinion which is clearly unfair.
Disadvantages of juries within the English, legal system
Time and expense
Although there are many advantages for juries within the English legal system, there
are many disadvantages. The main disadvantage of a case being heard by a juror is the
fact that they are lengthier and more expensive. It must be taken into consideration
that a jury trial is more expensive than that of a trial in the magistrate's court. AS law
by Elliott and Quinn explains that a Crown Court costs the taxpayer 7400 per day,
compared to a mere 1000 that the magistrates court costs. It also explains that the
jury spend a lot of time waiting around to be summoned into the court room, this time
me would not be waited if cases were heard by qualified judges. Finally it must be
noted that juries need the law explained to them, to be able to make reasonable
judgement, this takes up further time which would be needed if the case was dealt
with by a qualified person within the judiciary.
Lack Of competence
This is another disadvantage in juries. Lord Denning argues that because jurors are
taken, from such a wide section of society they are not competent to perform the task.
Since changes made in 1972 a wider contingent of people were made eligible for jury
service, this meant that many jurors summoned were not intelligent or educated
enough to perform the task of jury service properly. Denning suggests that jurors
should be selected in much the same way, as magistrates are The Roskill Committee
supports Dennings Theory and explained that trial by random jury was not a
satisfactory way of achieving justice. This basically means that it is unfair to
randomly select a jury, as many people may not be intelligent enough to handle the
case competently, therefore restricting their ability to make an informed decision. It
must also be noted that serving on a jury requires no educational qualification,
language abilities or comprehension requirements making it is possible for someone
with no concept of what is going on to sit on a jury and hear a case. '
Juries are more likely to acquit
AS law explains that research by the Home Office found that juries were twice as
likely to acquit, people could say this was because their inability to perform the role or
because they sympathise with the defendant. This is obviously a disadvantage as it
shows the juries decision to be unfair and incompetent, therefore causing an unfair
verdict to be delivered. This therefore undermines the whole system entirely.
Bias
An important point that must be considered is the fact that juries are just ordinary
members of the public. Therefore they may be for or against a. certain group based
purely on a preconception, for example they may favor attractive members of the
opposite sex or be prejudcied towards a member of the police department. AS law by
Elliot and Quinn explains that this is a particular problem in libel cases, as often the
jury decides to award money to famous people as they often have a preconceived
notion which is unfair towards newspapers. An example of this includes the 500,000
awarded to Jeffery Archer in 1987. There are also problems with racist juries. In the
cases Sander VS United Kingdom, Sander took his cases to the European Courts of
Human Rights. This was because a jury member had passed a note to the judge during
his trial explaining that they believed a member of the jury to be racist, the judge had
not dealt with this in the correct manner. This therefore enabled Sander to go to the
European court of appeal. Racist juries are a huge disadvantage to the jury system, as
they will never deliver a fair verdict. It also must be considered that it is very hard to
prove whether a jury is racist; because all jury discussion and decisions take place in
secret.
Finally a jury can also be influenced by local bias, for example they may be more
likely to deliver a guilty verdict to a person who is believed to have committed a car
theft, if car theft is a frequent occurrence in their local area. Bias is also a huge
disadvantage of a jury system, as bias can affect the outcome of a verdict and prevents
a competent decision being reached. It also must be considered that a juror could be
svayed by-'good advocacy skills and not concentrate on the fundamental facts of a
case.

Jury Nobbling
Jury nobbling has lead to many suspensions of juries, the most famous of these was
the suspension of the jury which was sitting on a terrorist offence in Ireland. Jury
nobbling is an obvious threat to the reliability of a verdict. Yet it must be remembered
that nobbling the jury is a very hard task because the judge will only accept a majority
verdict of 10-2orl 1-11 meaning that the jury must have at least three corrupt jurors in
any one case. The 1994 criminal justice and public order act gave more protection to
jury members by making it an offence to intimidate or threaten to harm a member of
the jury physically or financially. So although Jury nobbling is a huge disadvantage to
the jury system, it does not pose that much of a threat, yet it is impossible to prevent
its occurrence.

Lack of reason
Many juries will never fully understand court procedures, as most of them will not
posses legal qualifications. The fact must be considered that the jury only have to
return to the court and state their verdict, they do not have to explain their reasoning
for their decision, enabling it to be a possibility that they had lack of reasoning when
coming to a verdict. An example of this is that it could be the case that they just
decided their verdict based upon the party they favored. This causes jury to make an
unfair decision, which could have been prevented if a judge had tried the case. Also it
must be considered that when a judge sits alone, he or she must makes a judgement
and then explain their reasoning for coming to this judgement, therefore should this
not be the case for a jury.
Conclusion
The English Legal system has a policy of compulsory jury service; this is often very
unpopular with members of the public, as no one can refuse to do this duty. This could
create a situation, in which jurors become resentful, which may lead them to make
unsatisfactory and uninformed decision. This could apply to jurors who want to leave
jury service as quick a possible, it could be argued that they may go along with the
majority verdict even if it is contrary to their own beliefs, just to speed the decision
process. This is a great disadvantages, as it docs not enable a. fair and accurate
verdict, therefore underlies the principles of (he jury system.
No counseling offered to members of the jury
In cases that involve serious crimes of violence, for example rape, murder or child
abuse, members of the jury may have to hear and observe disturbing evidence, which
may leave them becoming deeply distressed. They may have to observe closely
graphic photograph of tap evidence. By the end of the case jury members may be
dealing with stress caused by the case. The courts offer no counseling and it is only
given in extreme cases when the jury member requests it. This means that the court
expects people to go back to their ordinary lives and forget about what they have seen
or heard. This is obviously a great disadvantage as it is a potential danger to other
jurors and themselves and is a very unfair burden thrust upon the jurors by the courts.

Conclusion
In conclusion although (here arc a number of disadvantages to the jury system I
believe overall it is a fairway of delivering a verdict which not only represents me
views of society, but allows there 10 be independent within the judiciary system as the
jury delivering [he verdict is not organised and orchestrated by the state. Therefore I
agree with Lord Delvin's statement. which declared that juries are the lamps that show
that freedom lives' and would say that juries are essential when administering justice
Bibliography for both Essays A an B
The English Legal System- Jacqueline Martin AS Law- HI Hot and Quinn
AS Law third edition-Mary Charman , Bobby Vanstone and Liz Sherrat
The English Legal system Resources Workbook- Jacqueline Martin
The complete A-Z Laws Handbook- Jacqueline Martin and Mary Gibbins "00" Short
listed Essay
Class Material
Internet quote for Lord Denning