During this essay I shall explain the role and discuss the arguments for and against Juries.
The Jury is a body of people who are lay, meaning that they are not legally qualified. Jury trials have become a contentious point within the English legal system. Trial by Jury is an ancient and democratic institution, meaning everybody has a say, the jury make it a trial of ones peers and in certain cases it is the jury's job to inject a certain amount of fairness and democracy, this only happens if they think the law is unfair. A good case that illustrates democracy is the case of R v Pontin. .
In the United Kingdom, the jury panel is selected at random, but there are three main exceptions. All those involved in the administration of justice, from judges to prison officers, are ineligible to serve. Those convicted of offences and given a severe sentence are disqualified from serving for a period that varies according to the sentence. Certain other people, such as medical and armed forces personnel, also have the right to be excused from serving. .
Computers are used to produce a random list of potential jurors from the electoral register, aged between 18 and 70, and have had to be residents of the UK, Channel Islands or Isle of Man for at least 5 years since they were at the age of thirteen. It has been declared by many academics that random jury selection will never 'guarantee a representative jury'. The use of the electoral roll as the means of selecting people for jury service naturally means that some of the population will be excluded, as not everyone is entitled to vote, let alone taking into account the various exceptions under the Juries Acts and so on. The claims of Lord Devlin in the 1970's that juries were primarily made up of white, middle-aged men from middle-class backgrounds was absolutely justified, as at the time, the majority of people registered to vote were exactly that. Research believes that up to twenty percent of black and Asian people never actually register to vote here in the UK.