The reliability of Britain’s jury system has been something that’s troubled me since long before it was announced there were plans to do away with jury trials in England and Wales for some crimes. It’s something I’ve thought about for more than a couple of decades, ever since experiencing jury service first hand.
It was on my mind more recently, still some time before news broke about proposed reforms to the jury system, because I saw the potential for a plot for a novel around the potential vagaries of twelve random people having the power to decide someone’s future. The starting point was my own experience during what was a serious trial. It was an experience which completely shattered any trust/confidence I had in putting my life in the hands of a jury. What I witnessed all those years ago were emotions dictating decisions, apathy, ignorance, prejudice, an inability to grasp complex points of law, a desire to get ‘it’ over and done with as quickly as possible no matter what, and herd mentality. Out of twelve people, I’d say I’d trust three to give the process the kind of due deliberation it deserved: I’m including myself in those three.
And that’s the foundation for my plot; although, it might be a long time before I get around to actually writing the book.
What’s age got to do with it?
Recently, posts I’ve read on social media reinforce my views. People respond to emotional manipulation rather than adopt an objective stance. Take all those posts about ‘pensioners’ being arrested. Before anyone gets hot and bothered about why they were arrested (thus proving my point about an emotional rather than considered and logical response), my issue is with the manipulative use of age to fuel outrage. If a twenty-year-old and a seventy-year-old commit the same crime, should the seventy-year-old be treated differently because of their age? It is condescending and patronising whenever age is used as a tool to provoke pity.
The question of social class
Blowing up a film set
Recently, I listened to a hugely entertaining report on R4 about a group of friends in Wiltshire in 1967 who took exception to the damage caused by a film crew in the area shooting scenes for Dr Doolittle. Their plans to sabotage the shoot included blowing up a sandbag dam among other destructive ‘jolly japes.’ Unsurprisingly, they were arrested. One of the saboteurs was the famous explorer Sir Ranulph Fiennes who was serving in the SAS at the time. Although found guilty of the crime, it was for the lesser charge of ‘conspiring to cause a public mischief’ and ‘unlawful possession of explosives,’ which doesn’t seem ‘lesser’ to me. They received fines rather than custodial sentences. Fiennes was dismissed from the SAS but not the Army. We all know what happened to him after that.
Scotland’s Stone of Destiny
In the 1950s, four Scottish students hatched an audacious plot to liberate the Stone of Destiny (Stone of Scone) from Westminster Abbey and return it to its rightful home in Scotland. They were successful, even though they broke the stone during its liberation, causing a national search to recover it. Eventually, the Stone of Destiny was retrieved and the culprits brought to justice. None of the four were prosecuted as ‘nobody had been harmed during the theft.’ The mastermind of the raid was Ian Hamilton KC who, ironically, subsequently went on to have a successful career in criminal law.
I have admiration for the perpetrators in both stories; they sound like great adventures, worthy of being turned into movies, and in the name of causes the people involved felt passionate about. But there is also a niggle which, if I were a juror on either case, would have me arguing for a different outcome. What if those involved had come from a housing estate in an inner city rather from a privileged background? I suspect neither ‘crime’ would be treated as the jolly adventure the media subsequently presented it as. Neither do I believe that those involved would go on to have hugely successful careers. Quite the opposite. Their lives would probably have been ruined.
Things haven’t changed. Those from privileged backgrounds across the political spectrum act with impunity. What astounds me is the number of people who aren’t from privileged backgrounds who behave as enablers, helping perpetuate, applaud even, instances where these gross inequalities continue to be applied.
Immediately following my experience all those years ago, I would happily have done away with the traditional jury system, replacing it with a system which used ‘professional’ jurors who could at least bring some level of objectivity to the table. But this was long before the subjective circus that is social media became a thing. Now, the idea of a jury consisting of some of the people whose toxic views pollute all social media platforms on a daily basis is even more terrifying.
