Letter: Mysteries of the jury
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Many of your readers will have been baffled at the decision of a jury to acquit a 6ft 2in policeman who sprayed CS gas in the face of a pensioner who was sitting with a seat belt on in a parked vehicle (report, 10 June).
In a restrained and careful way the trial judge expressed dismay at the jury's decision, but that, of course, is all he could do. This was not always so. Historically judges used to imprison juries who did not arrive at the "correct" verdict until they changed their minds. It was Bushell's case in 1670 which established the immunity of the jury from punishment for reaching what the judges saw as wayward decisions.
Today the jury is commonly regarded as emblematic of a democracy and a bulwark against state tyranny. We put up with perverse verdicts because that is a price worth paying.
The problem is that despite a recommendation by the Runciman Commission on Criminal Justice (1993) for the legalisation of jury research, such projects are still unlawful. We simply do not know, therefore, whether the means by which most juries arrive at their decisions are rational and composed or irrational and informed by prejudice.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments