On the surface, the rationale for the UK government’s proposals to limit the use of jury trials in England and Wales is pragmatic. More than 78,000 crown court cases remain unresolved, creating years-long delays for victims and defendants alike.
But among those of us who research jury behaviour and decision-making these proposals raise a deeper debate. Some argue juries are too biased, too unreliable to deliver justice.
Their hope is that if we could replace them with trained legal professionals we might finally reduce the role bias plays in the courtroom. But is this even possible?
All observation is "theory-laden". Scientists, politicians, judges and jurors are not immune to their biases and world views influencing their decision-making.
Both judges and juries bring biases to the courtroom. The critical difference is that juries are more diverse than a single judge. Today, 89% of judges are white, 61% are men and about a third attended private school. Fewer than 10% come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
This class and educational homogeneity matters profoundly. Judges who attended private school and university share not just demographic characteristics but formative experiences. Their relationships with authority, economic security, educational advantage and professional networks are likely to be less diverse than those of a jury.
Different social positions provide access to different knowledge. Someone who attended private school, joined chambers and rose through the judiciary simply hasn’t lived through experiences that would provide insight into many people’s lives.
For example, this might include how economic precarity affects people’s decisions, how working-class communities relate to police authority, or how educational disadvantages affect your ability to navigate bureaucratic systems.
These aren’t biases in the sense of prejudice. They are inevitable limitations of a single perspective.
When judges assess whether behaviour was "reasonable" or a complainant’s response was "credible", they are making ethical evaluations that mix facts with values. A judge evaluating whether a working-class defendant’s actions were reasonable brings their own class experience to that judgement, whether they recognise it or not.
Twelve randomly selected citizens bring 12 different life experiences. Through deliberation, they must make those experiences visible and justify their interpretation to each other.
If a judge makes a decision on their own, only their own biases will influence the verdict. In a jury, consensus needs to be reached. Different opinions and perspectives will shape the outlooks of others. This makes the verdict more informed by community beliefs, rather than from specific sections of the community.
A jury drawn from the electoral register might include someone who left school at 16, someone who has experienced unemployment or housing insecurity, someone who has worked in manual labour, or someone from a community where police relations are fraught. These are not just different backgrounds, they are different forms of knowledge about how society works for many people.
This diversity is important for both defendants and victims.
Evidence shows that judges may be more likely to convict defendants compared with juries
Any changes towards judge-only trials may disadvantage future defendants when compared with the current system, where a defendant can choose the option of a jury trial for certain types of offence.
We believe it is positive the UK government’s proposals will retain jury trials in cases of rape and murder. In serious crimes, we need diversity of thought and opinion in our decision-making.
This collective scrutiny — 12 different perspectives negotiating with each other — is something an individual judge cannot replicate.
While judges may consult colleagues, at trial stage they ultimately decide alone — without a formal deliberation requiring them to defend their interpretations to others who have equal decision-making authority.
A diverse jury has this built-in corrective mechanism, which is why it must remain a part of the UK’s legal system.
• Elaine Jackson is a PhD candidate, University of Glasgow; Lee John Curley is a lecturer in psychology, Glasgow Caledonian University; Martin Lages is an associate professor, University of Glasgow.
