Bringing You the Daily Dispatch

The Jury's performance in the Murder Trial is a clear indication of the potential downfall of the UK legal system as we currently understand it.
Culture TV and Radio

The Jury’s performance in the Murder Trial is a clear indication of the potential downfall of the UK legal system as we currently understand it.


It is a concept that is both simple and genius, leaving you to question why it has not been tried before. The idea is to recreate a trial, word for word, using actors and present it to a new jury. The deliberations of this jury, which are typically kept private, will be filmed to see if they reach the same verdict as the original jury. This is the basis of Channel 4’s show, The Jury: Murder Trial, with the added element of having two juries attending the same trial without each other’s knowledge.

It is extremely frightening. As the saying goes, witnessing the process of making a sausage should be avoided at all costs. However, in comparison, it would be preferable to witness the making of a thousand sausages rather than observing the inner workings of this essential component of the legal system – the most effective means we have devised for administering justice and determining the outcomes of countless individuals who have been accused, their accusers, and those who have suffered in silence.

Based on the estimations of criminologists, juries may reach an incorrect verdict in approximately 25% of cases. This statistic is difficult to confirm due to the confidential nature of the deliberation process and the rule prohibiting jurors from discussing their decisions afterwards. After only ten minutes of watching The Jury, one may yearn for the days when this percentage seemed attainable.

We encounter a few of the jurors prior to the start of the trial. Some appear to be anxious about their role, while others are eager to begin.

During the initial day of the eight-day court reconstruction, the case details were presented. The facts were relatively straightforward. John, also known as Sam Alexander, confessed to killing his wife of two months, Helen, also known as Katie Sheridan. She was strangled and then struck three times in the head with a large hammer. She passed away two days later while in the hospital. John immediately admitted to the crime when the police arrived, claiming that he had “snapped.” He is pleading not guilty to murder on this basis. If the jury accepts his defense of loss of control, he will be found guilty of manslaughter, which carries a minimum sentence of two years. Otherwise, it will be considered murder and carry a life sentence, with the length determined by the judge.

At this moment in the trial, the first break for the jury begins and it is possible that it will mark the end of the UK legal system as we currently know it. What happens next is, for those who are pessimistic, everything they feared about human nature coming true. However, they may have previously convinced themselves that these actions would never occur when lives and justice for the deceased are at stake. For optimists, there is a difficult road ahead and all I can offer is my apologies. My suggestion would be to avoid watching any social experiments on television in this bleak future that is now inevitable.

Some individuals are easily influenced by various factors, such as facts, statements from acquaintances and former partners, and emotional displays, while others stand firm in their original beliefs. This sometimes stems from a sincere desire to remain impartial until all evidence is presented, but more often it is due to personal biases. People’s past experiences shape how they perceive events, causing them to prioritize certain facts and assign different intentions to the defendant and the deceased victim. Strong personalities can dominate and cause tension among group members. The conflicts between individuals threaten to overshadow the purpose of their gathering. Comparing jury deliberations to scenes from a reality TV show may be unavoidable, as there are no clear-headed individuals like Henry Fonda present.

There are deeper, more philosophical questions to consider: Does personal experience always lead to bias, or can it enhance understanding and empathy? Is a man who has displayed violent behavior towards his wife suitable to serve on a jury for a particular case? Could the diverse life experiences of jurors bring about wisdom and balance any biases that may exist? If so, is a jury of only 12 people sufficient? Should we follow the example of ancient Athens and involve a larger number of jurors? Given our increasingly divided society, is the jury system still effective? Has it ever been? Or, like democracy and capitalism, is it flawed but the best option available? Regardless of the answers, it remains a captivating and potentially valuable form of television, although it may also evoke feelings of despair.

Skip over the promotion for the newsletter.

Source: theguardian.com