Question. It relates to the Insight 2009 exam.
'Explain the role of the jury in a criminal trial and assess the extent to which juries help contribute to the effective operation of the legal system, by making reference to two of the elements of an effective legal system.' (8 marks)
The bit in bold is confusing me quite a bit. I know one point/argument that I can link to 'fair and unbiased hearing' (that is, they provide for a cross-section of the community etc.), but I can't seem to find another element to link to (with a strong argument for). If I've interpreted the question correctly, it's asking for what two elements can be linked to juries in which they contribute to an effective legal system. I'm finding this question to be quite ambiguous; hence any help would be greatly appreciated.
this is a good question, and very likely as it covers multiple areas of the of the course and gives people the opportunity to boast knowledge. now this question is from the previous study design, where you were taught 4 elements of an efffective legal system (the 4th being the reflection of prevailing social values and basic human rights). this 4th element was taken out because there were only a few things that related to it, the main thing being the jury system. so now that it doesnt exist according to the study design, you can't use that one, which is what the question would have been looking for (along with fair and unbiased hearing).
in actual fact, the jury system generally hinders the other elements for various reasons. For example, the fact that evidence must be explained comprehensively to jurors in the simplest manner means that the timely resolution of disputes is impeded.
However, you could talk about how the jury provides effective mechanisms of access through this, because evidence (and the trial as a whole for that matter) is conducted in a people-friendly, comprehensible, intelligible way, which allows the average individual to access the law as one with no legal background can readily understand what is happening. With no jury, there would likely be excessive amounts of complex evidence, legal jargon, and confusing arguments presented.
another point for fair and unbiased hearing is that the the prejudice of a single juror is counterbalanced by the remainder of the jury panel. thus, the ideas spawned from without the trial are not given the opportunity to blossom or influence the legal fate of the defendant. in effect, this ensure a fair and unbiased hearing.
also, you could talk about, like you said, the fact that one's getting tried by their peers - people with the same legal standing - safeguards fairness in that the biases that may be associated with legal professionals are absent in the jury panel. This is ensured by the various exemptions that prevent certain people from being placed on a jury (if you need to fill space, you can explain this in a little more detail...but not too much
)
hope this helps