What are the disadvantages of using jurors in the criminal justice process?

A jury is comprised of jurors, whose purpose is to render a verdict submitted to them by a court. This "trial by peers" approach has stood the test of time and has been long established. However, this essay looks to identify the disadvantages of using jurors in the criminal justice process. It can be said from the outset that a number of issues arise, which arguably compromise their role to a certain extent.

The first disadvantage arises from the fact that jurors are not required to explain the reasons behind their decisions. According to professor Darbyshire, these result to perverse verdicts, which refers to the jury's capacity to deliver verdicts according to conscience rather than by taking the law and evidence into account. The case of Ponting showed how these verdicts undermine not only the rule of law, but the oath sworn by jurors to give a true verdict according to the evidence too. Even though the judge directed that the defendant committed an offence, the jury found him not guilty. In addition to this, the case of Young shows another weakness of using jurors. In this case, some of the jurors tried contacting one of the defendant’s victims, and proceeded to influence the jury to unanimously convict the defendant. The question here is not whether this was the correct verdict or not, but that the verdict was reached through internal influence rather than direction by the judge and evidence. Finally, through the case of R v West, the extensive coverage of the case by the media arguably compromised the defendant’s right to a fair trial. Even though the jurors were instructed to only examine the evidence they heard in court, it was almost impossible not to become influenced by the media.