12 Unqualified Good Men and True

[Birchy]

Have professional jurors ever been considered in the British legal system? The current "cross section" of the public is a bit flimsy innit?

[rekstout]

The whole point of a jury is that it a collection of one's peers. The point being that your equals should decide on your guilt or innocence. That being said, the home office did once talk about selecting jurors with specific professional backgrounds for specific complex trials so that they had a better understanding of what was being discussed (e.g. a jury of accountants in a complex fraud trail).

[incitatus]

The closest we get is magistrates, who are effectively a professional jury. The point of the system is that while a judge can administer the law, a jury administers justice. Those 12 flimsy people have the right to acquit you, even if you are guilty, if they feel that it is just to do so. A judge could not. This is why the peer status of the jury is so desperately important.

[JohnPPotts]

One of the major problems is the ease with which "professionals" can get exclusions from jury service, with the result than jurors tend to be less qualified, unemployed or retired. Although there's no reason this should lead to a "worse" jury, it's certainly a less representative one.

[MistyLady]

Believe me it is not easy to get out of jury service. The organisation I was with was going through major re-organisation and I was playing a key part and could not get excluded from my duties. Saying that a friend was called for jury service and although I do not know the details of the case, she did say she was amazed that 5 of the 12 did not know what a class A drug was and the other jurors had to explain this. Very frightening if you are the victim and these people are making the decision!