Critically discuss whether using juries in English criminal cases is in any way beneficial.
Use a minimum of 7 citations. Make sure it is excellent and has strong arguments because it is for a law summative The concept of jury system has been in existence for some time, and its early use is associated with the Norman Conquest before it was introduced to Britain. However, it is worth pointing out that the use of the jury in the early days was different from how it is applied today (Pakes, 2017). In those days, jurors in England served as witnesses who offered valuable information concerning local affairs (Terrill, 2012). This has changed, so that jurors are now used as adjudicators, a role that was transformed significantly under the rule of Henry II.
At this point, juries would not report on events they had information about but were tasked with discussing the facts and evidence of the case as presented to them by the prosecution and defence in order to reach a verdict of guilty or not guilty. As a result of the changing nature of juries, there is a lot of evidence that their use in English criminal cases is no longer as beneficial as it used to be. This will be argued by demonstrating the inherent bias that jury members might have, the difficulty jurors in understanding legal language, as well issues that arise as a result the secrecy in the verdict process. First body paragraph: First reason that a jury system is not beneficial is because of Bias (ex. Racial bias) Second body paragraph: second reason is that there might be legal misunderstanding; sometimes juries do not understand the facts of the case. (examples to use to support this argument: (vicky pryce case, cheryl Thomas “are juries fair?” article) Third body paragraph: The third reason is because of secrecy in the verdict (potential human rights issue)