Selected for criminal trial

A jury for a criminal trial has to go through many processes before being selected. Checks have to be made that the members of the jury are suitable for the case. The jury is made up of members of the public as this is fair as it represents the community and this way, the community get to have a say in what punishment they think defendants should be get if any. The members of the jury have to be aged between 18-70, registered on the electoral register and resident in the UK, Channel Islands or Isle of Man for at least five years since the aged of thirteen.

If these three needs are met then people are put through further checks to make sure they have the qualities to sit as a member of the jury. People who have been sentenced to prison or a young offender's institution may be disqualified from jury service, depending on how long the sentence was for and how recently it was made. Persons who have been sentenced to life or five years or more imprisonment can never serve on a jury. Also, anyone who has served a sentence of three months or more in prison or youth custody or been subject of a Community Service order during the past ten years cannot sit on the jury.

Someone who has received probation is also disqualified. Some members of the public are ineligible. Those members include people who are the judiciary; those concerned with the administration of Justice, such as barristers, solicitors, prison officers, police officers and their spouses, Justices of the Peace. Also the clergy cannot sit as members of the jury. People with mental ill health or who are on bail in criminal proceedings. Some members of the public are considered to have duties that are more important than jury service may choose whether or not they wish to serve.

These people include MP's, MEP's, members of the House of Lords, members of the armed forces, doctors, nurses, midwives and pharmacists. These people have the excusal as of right. Computers are used to create a random list of possible jurors from the electoral register. Once this list is produced, Summons are sent out with a form to return corroborating that the person does not fall into any of the disqualified or ineligible groups. From the resulting list the jury panel is built.

Jury service is mandatory for all those who are not disqualified, ineligible or excused, and a failure to attend on the set dates or feebleness through drink and drugs is a contempt of court and can result in a fine. The traditional view of the jury is that it must be selected at random as this way, it represents the public as a whole as certain members have not been pin-picked. However, Jury Vetting has occurred which embodies of checking that possible jurors do not hold extremist views which some feel would make then inappropriate for hearing a case.

It is accomplished by checking police, Special Branch and security service records. The 1988 revisions to the guidelines that as a rule, the jury should be picked at random, with people only being excused only under the statutory omissions, for example, previous convictions. The correct way for the prosecution to exclude a juror was by a challenge in open court rather than underhand computer checks. But it was also stated that vetting might be obligatory in specific special cases: Furthermore the judge may emit any juror or even the jury as a whole to obstruct a scandal or the perversion of justice.

This restricted process of challenging the jury is differs extremely to the method in the USA where it can take days to complete the process and have the final jury combined - particularly when there has been a lot of pre-trial media coverage. Possible jury members can be asked a variety of questions about their attitudes and views raised by a certain case. b) Explain the arguments for and against jury trial. (13 marks) There are many arguments in support of the jury and many against the jury. An argument that is in support of the jury is that it is an ancient institution.

The positioning of the jury goes back to the 13th century and our whole trial method is founded upon it. Another argument for the jury is that it hears the most serious offences. Although a vast number of cases are heard in the Magistrates Court, there are still a small number of cases that are heard in the Crown Court. Therefore, these cases are very serious and lead to very serious outcomes for the freedom, career and character of the defendant if found guilty. Several argue that it the jury is the safest way for justice to be served in these serious cases.

One of the main arguments in support of the jury is that the jury is made up of the public. This means that the public can express their feelings on how they think justice should be done to make their community a better one. Also, a verdict from members of the public is more acceptable than one given by a single Judge or Magistrate. Both Judges and Magistrates are principally white and middle class but the jury is made up of people from various classes, genders and races. As the jury is made up of ordinary people, not only is justice done but also it has been seen to be done.