The Vikings invented jury service and Jeremy Thorpe’s acquittal led to the Contempt of Court Act, writes Lucy Kenningham
Last week I was one member of a jury that convicted a man of murder; he will now spend 27 years in prison. The decision – guilty or not guilty? – was the most consequential I’ve ever had to take.
How did we as a collective come to our decision? Well, courtrooms no longer use the term “beyond reasonable doubt”. Instead, we were told we had to be “sure”. An odd word to use, I thought, as it seemed jarringly untechnical – a filler word by simping Americans. I soon fell down an existential, epistemological wormhole – but how can you be sure of anything? – I eventually clambered out with the crutch of the judge’s legal directions. These advised us (optimistically) to use our “common sense”, ignore our emotions and concentrate on the evidence.
Don’t speculate, the judge told us, but do draw on your life experience. This I found disconcertingly paradoxical. And it is this element that was, unintentionally, highlighted in Channel 4’s new drama The Jury: Murder Trial. In the show, the transcript from a real murder trial is acted out in a fake court for the benefit of two onlooking “juries” which then deliver a verdict. Spoiler: they come to different conclusions, ostensibly highlighting the failings of the modern justice........