Advantages and Disadvantages of Using a Jury
- teachlawhub
- Nov 9, 2025
- 5 min read
Juries have been a central feature of the English legal system for centuries. In criminal trials, they play a vital role in deciding whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. While many see juries as a symbol of democracy and fairness, their use is not without criticism. This blog will explore both the advantages and disadvantages of using a jury in criminal trials.
Advantages of Using a Jury:
Private Decisions:
One of the key advantages of juries is that they make decisions in private. After hearing all the evidence in the trial, the jurors will retire to the jury room, where their discussions remain confidential. The jury room is a private room where only the jury are allowed. They cannot share or discuss their decision making process outside this space. This privacy allows them to make decisions freely, without fear of outside influence. It also promotes fairness, as their verdict can reflect what they believe is just, rather than being bound strictly by legal rules. This concept is known as jury equity, and it enables juries to deliver verdicts based on fairness and community values, even if this goes against the letter of the law.
Juries Represent Public Opinion:
Juries are selected randomly from the electoral register, which helps ensure diversity and representation. They bring with them the perspectives and values of wider society. Since the Criminal Justice Act 2003, even judges, lawyers, and police officers can serve as jurors, and since 2022 deaf people can also serve as jury members, widening the pool of people eligible for jury service. This inclusivity ensures that decisions are not made solely by legal professionals but by a cross-section of society. As a result, juries reflect community values, and their verdicts brings public confidence to the legal system.
Independence:
Jurors are independent of the trial process. They are randomly selected and must not have any personal connection to the case. With twelve jurors sitting together, the influence of one biased individual can be outweighed by the others. This independence means that decisions are made impartially, without pressure from judges, lawyers, or politicians. Ultimately, it helps to safeguard the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
Secrecy:
Juries make their decisions in secret, and we do not get details of what happens in the jury room, which shields them from external pressures and professional influence. This allows jurors to speak freely, consider fairness, and focus on the evidence they have seen. The secrecy of the jury room means their discussions cannot be scrutinised, which protects jurors and encourages honest debate.
Disadvantages of Using a Jury:
Secrecy:
While secrecy has advantages, it also raises concerns. Because no one knows what jurors discuss, there is no guarantee that their decisions are based solely on the evidence presented in court. In some cases, jurors have resorted to unorthodox methods. For example, in the Stephen Young case, jurors used a Ouija board in their hotel room to contact the victim and decide guilt. Such behaviour undermines trust in the system and raises the risk of unsafe convictions. Secrecy can also hide issues like bullying within the jury room or the improper use of social media, all of which can impact the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
Influence of the Media:
In today’s technological age, jurors are surrounded by constant media coverage. They are instructed to only consider the evidence presented in court, but in practice, it is difficult to prevent them from researching cases online or being influenced by social media. Media bias can distort facts, create prejudice, and interfere with the defendant’s right to a fair trial. If jurors are influenced by outside information, their verdict may be unsafe.
Lay Jurors:
Another disadvantage is that jurors are lay, this means that they are ordinary members of the public with no legal training. The law can be complex, and although judges explain it, there is no way to ensure that jurors fully understand it, because deliberations are private, there is no way of checking whether the law has been applied correctly. This lack of legal knowledge can slow down trials, increase costs, and, in some cases, lead to rushed or poorly reasoned decisions.
Perverse Verdicts:
Juries sometimes return verdicts based on their own personal opinions rather than the evidence presented in court. These are known as perverse verdicts. For example, jurors may acquit a defendant who is clearly guilty because they disagree with a particular law, do not trust the police evidence, or feel sympathy for the defendant’s situation. This can occur because jurors are free to use jury equity, meaning they can decide based on what they personally believe is fair, even if this goes against legal rules. This is an issue because it means that the verdict may not be based on the facts or the law, but instead on emotion or personal belief. As a result, a guilty defendant could be wrongly acquitted, and justice may not be achieved for the victim or the wider community. It can lead to unfair and inconsistent outcomes, and it may undermine public confidence in the fairness and reliability of the jury system. If the public believes verdicts can be based on opinion rather than evidence, trust in the criminal justice system may be weakened.
Juries May Not Be Truly Representative:
Although juries are intended to reflect society by being selected randomly from the electoral register, this does not always happen in practice. Many people are disqualified, excused, or able to defer jury service, particularly those in professional or full-time employment. Younger working adults, carers, students in intensive study, and some minority groups are therefore less likely to serve. This means the typical jury is more likely to consist of older or retired individuals, which may not reflect the diversity of modern society.
This is an issue because it means that a jury may not genuinely represent a broad cross-section of the population. If jurors lack diversity, they may not fully understand the experiences, cultural backgrounds, or social pressures faced by certain defendants.
This can lead to misunderstandings, unconscious bias, or decisions that do not reflect the values and experiences of the wider public. It may also reduce public confidence if people feel that those making verdicts do not reflect people like them.
Conclusion:
The use of juries in criminal trials has both strengths and weaknesses. On the one hand, juries bring fairness, independence, and public confidence to the justice system. They act as a vital link between the law and the community, ensuring that decisions reflect societal values. On the other hand, secrecy, lack of legal knowledge, and the risk of bias or perverse verdicts highlight serious drawbacks. Whether juries remain the best way to deliver justice is still a subject of debate, but their role continues to be central to the English legal system.
Click below to download the FREE TeachLaw student activity pack.
