Letter: Jury reform

Monday 17 November 1997 00:02 GMT

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: Having just completed jury service, I agree with Valerie and Martin Hewitt (letter, 11 November) that the present system is unsatisfactory, but I would not agree that all jurors should be lay magistrates. I would prefer a combination of professionals and members of the public. This would have been beneficial.

A suggestion made by a member of our jury was that there should be a period of jurors' question time before retirement, when the jury could ask questions of judge and counsel.

One jury member felt she was too young to make the necessary decisions; perhaps there should be a lower age limit of 30.

SANDRA BOUGHTON

Sidcup, Kent

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Letter: Jury reform

Join our commenting forum

Thank you for registering