Search a title or topic

Over 20 million podcasts, powered by 

Player FM logo
Artwork

Content provided by BBC and BBC Radio 4. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by BBC and BBC Radio 4 or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://podcastplayer.com/legal.
Player FM - Podcast App
Go offline with the Player FM app!

The Jury: Moral Innovation or Historic Relic?

56:29
 
Share
 

Manage episode 522612299 series 1301209
Content provided by BBC and BBC Radio 4. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by BBC and BBC Radio 4 or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://podcastplayer.com/legal.

The jury trial has been around for almost 1,000 years. Magna Carta, in 1215, enshrined the principle that “No free man shall be... imprisoned… except by the lawful judgement of his peers.” That could be about to change, under the proposal by the Justice Secretary, David Lammy, to restrict jury trials to the most serious cases. The aim is to deal with an unprecedented backlog in the courts. Britain, thus far, has been in the minority: most countries around the world rely on judges – not juries – to evaluate the evidence, assess guilt, and deliver justice. Those in favour of juries see them as a moral institution, putting justice in the hands of randomly-selected ordinary people, rather than those of the state or a legal elite, and so reducing the chance of a biased or blinkered verdict. Opponents argue that juries can be obstacles to justice, not immune to prejudiced decisions, and lacking the expertise to weigh up the evidence in complex cases. While some see the jury system as a redundant relic of the past, others believe the deliberative democratic principle it embodies should be extended to other areas of public life in innovative ways. Should we, as some suggest, replace the House of Lords with a second chamber full of randomly-selected representative voters? Those in favour of citizen juries in politics, as well as in the governance of public institutions, believe they can provide greater democratic legitimacy and lead to better decisions, through a combination of lived experience and expert guidance. Those against citizen juries say they undermine a fundamental democratic principle: one person, one vote.

Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Matthew Taylor, Inaya Folarin-Iman, Tim Stanley and Mona Siddiqui Witnesses: Sir Simon Jenkins, Fiona Rutherford, Anna Coote and Tom Simpson Producer: Dan Tierney.

  continue reading

268 episodes

Artwork

The Jury: Moral Innovation or Historic Relic?

Moral Maze

1,084 subscribers

published

iconShare
 
Manage episode 522612299 series 1301209
Content provided by BBC and BBC Radio 4. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by BBC and BBC Radio 4 or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://podcastplayer.com/legal.

The jury trial has been around for almost 1,000 years. Magna Carta, in 1215, enshrined the principle that “No free man shall be... imprisoned… except by the lawful judgement of his peers.” That could be about to change, under the proposal by the Justice Secretary, David Lammy, to restrict jury trials to the most serious cases. The aim is to deal with an unprecedented backlog in the courts. Britain, thus far, has been in the minority: most countries around the world rely on judges – not juries – to evaluate the evidence, assess guilt, and deliver justice. Those in favour of juries see them as a moral institution, putting justice in the hands of randomly-selected ordinary people, rather than those of the state or a legal elite, and so reducing the chance of a biased or blinkered verdict. Opponents argue that juries can be obstacles to justice, not immune to prejudiced decisions, and lacking the expertise to weigh up the evidence in complex cases. While some see the jury system as a redundant relic of the past, others believe the deliberative democratic principle it embodies should be extended to other areas of public life in innovative ways. Should we, as some suggest, replace the House of Lords with a second chamber full of randomly-selected representative voters? Those in favour of citizen juries in politics, as well as in the governance of public institutions, believe they can provide greater democratic legitimacy and lead to better decisions, through a combination of lived experience and expert guidance. Those against citizen juries say they undermine a fundamental democratic principle: one person, one vote.

Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Matthew Taylor, Inaya Folarin-Iman, Tim Stanley and Mona Siddiqui Witnesses: Sir Simon Jenkins, Fiona Rutherford, Anna Coote and Tom Simpson Producer: Dan Tierney.

  continue reading

268 episodes

All episodes

×
 
Loading …

Welcome to Player FM!

Player FM is scanning the web for high-quality podcasts for you to enjoy right now. It's the best podcast app and works on Android, iPhone, and the web. Signup to sync subscriptions across devices.

 

Copyright 2025 | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | | Copyright
Listen to this show while you explore
Play