juries eval

• pro - public confidence in system due to participation - goes back to Magna Carta 1215
• pro - dont have to follow precedents - can make moral decisions
• pro - jury equity is an advantage as juries cannot be pressurised by a judge - from BUSHELL's case in 1670
• pro - the decisions are kept secret and they are made to make their decision from external influences - e.g media/society
• pro - juries are a representative of society - picked at random and should lead to an impartial jury as wont be connected to anyone in the case
• cons - jury members lack qualifications - may be hard to understand complex cases/terms
• con - jury trial is time consuming and costly to the state
• con - 12 people on a jury might be too much to reach a productive decision - could still work with 7 or 9 as then there is still a majority on one side - easier to reach a unanimous decision
• con - jury doesnt need to give reason for outcome so hard for the defendant to appeal the decision as dont know why it was made
• con - jury members could be bribed or intimidated by the pros or defence teams
• con - if a jury is to not reach a unanimous decision then the entire trial has to be retried with a new jury - time wasting and costly to do it all again