100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Previously searched by you
Previously searched by you
logo
Summary Criminology Unit 3: AC 2.5 write up model answer £4.15   Add to cart
Quickly navigate to
Preview
  2.  
  3. WJEC
  4.  
  5. Criminology
  6.  
  7. Crime Scene to Courtroom

Summary

Summary Criminology Unit 3: AC 2.5 write up model answer

9 reviews
 2166 views  9 purchases

These are my answers that I used to achieve a near perfect 95/100 marks on the Year 13 Unit 3 Criminology controlled assessment. Of course, I changed it as needed during the exam, but these were the backbones of my answers. This resource covers AC 2.5. This detailed answer is well-developed after t...

[Show more]

Preview 1 out of 2  pages

Document information

  • No
  • Ac 2.5
  • January 13, 2023
  • 2
  • 2022/2023
  • Summary

Subjects

Connected book

book image

Book Title:

Author(s):

  • Edition:
  • ISBN:
  • Edition:

More summaries for

All for this textbook (41)

Written for

All documents for this subject (371)

9  reviews

review-writer-avatar

By: carneybradshawnathaniel • 4 weeks ago

review-writer-avatar

By: fathiaadetoro • 8 months ago

reply-writer-avatar

By: rin4 • 6 months ago

heya !! i'm so pleased you found 2.5 useful -- thanks for leaving a review and good luck with unit three :) (hope it went well if you've already done it !!)

review-writer-avatar

By: amrita90 • 10 months ago

reply-writer-avatar

By: rin4 • 10 months ago

hiya thanks for your reviews i'm so glad these documents helped you out :) feel free to let me know if you have any questions :))

review-writer-avatar

By: pologneruth • 11 months ago

reply-writer-avatar

By: rin4 • 11 months ago

it's great that 2.5 helped you out too - best of luck for unit three !!!!!

review-writer-avatar

By: esssaaa • 1 year ago

reply-writer-avatar

By: rin4 • 1 year ago

thanks for the review, and good luck with the unit three NEA!

review-writer-avatar

By: nevehastings • 11 months ago

reply-writer-avatar

By: rin4 • 11 months ago

hi again :) thanks for your reviews, i'm so glad these helped you out ! good luck with all your future exams :)

review-writer-avatar

By: h15 • 11 months ago

reply-writer-avatar

By: rin4 • 11 months ago

hi :) i'm so glad you found 2.5 useful too! hope unit three goes well :)

Show more reviews  

Seller

avatar-seller
rin4

Reviews received

Content preview

AC 2.5: Discuss the Use of Laypeople in Criminal Cases

A layperson is a member of the public who doesn’t have legal qualifications or professional knowledge
of the law. Laypeople can be involved with criminal trials in court by being a magistrate or being a
member of the jury. A magistrate is a layperson who has volunteered to sit in court and decide if a case
has been proven, and a juror is a member of the public who decides the outcome of a criminal case.

Jurors are members of the public without legal knowledge who are randomly selected from the electoral
register to consider a criminal case’s evidence and decide its outcome. However, for some it could be an
offence to serve on a jury. This would be the case if someone had been on probation or bail, or had a
criminal record and served a sentence. Someone may also not be eligible to be a juror if they already
know information about or have a link to the case. 12 jurors are chosen to sit in on a case which usually
lasts around 10 working days. They affirm or take the oath before the trial begins. Jurors must base their
opinion entirely on the evidence they hear and must not disclose any information about the case
outside the courtroom. All jurors must agree on a verdict for it to be passed. They may choose not to
follow the law, and instead agree on a verdict that is morally right. This is called jury equity, and a prime
example of this is the case of R v Owen. In this case, the defendant, Owen, had shot a lorry driver after
he had killed his son whilst driving an unroadworthy vehicle. Despite Owen being guilty of shooting the
driver, the jury ultimately found him not guilty, following their morals rather than the suggestion of the
law. Some jury members even congratulated Owen after the trial, saying they would have done the
same thing. Jury equity means that defendants are more likely to receive a fair trial when being judged
by people equal to them, compared to if the verdict had been decided by a judge.

Using laypeople in juries has strengths and weaknesses. For example, randomly choosing members of
the public results in a diverse group of people who feel they are fulfilling their civic duties by doing jury
duty and enacting justice. Due to not being allowed to research the case they are sitting in on or similar
cases, the jury doesn’t follow past judgements. Instead, they base their decisions purely on the evidence
before them. However, one of the most important reasons for using laypeople in the jury is removing
unconscious bias, whether this is racial or gender bias, for example. This is because the justice system is
meant to treat everyone fairly and equally, but if a conviction is based off a biased opinion (intentional
or not), then there is no fairness within court.
On the other hand, using laypeople within juries also has weaknesses. One of these is the media, which
could influence jurors and their decisions. This is extremely likely during well documented cases such as
the Johnny Depp v Amber Heard trial, as it covered the news and internet leading to it being very
difficult to avoid reading about. Alternatively, jurors could actively search for similar cases to gauge
previous verdicts or outcomes, which a study by Cheryl Thomas found that 12% of jurors asked had
admitted to doing. As well as this, using laypeople themselves may be an occasional weakness in a
criminal case, as their lack of qualifications and knowledge about the law might mean they find it
difficult to appropriately assess or understand the evidence before them. One of the biggest weaknesses
for using laypeople in juries is jury prejudice, because despite jurors being chosen at random in a bid to
remove this, a juror could still be prejudiced towards anyone involved in a case, whether consciously or
unconsciously. If just one juror showed prejudice in their decision, the whole verdict could be affected
as not all 12 jurors agree.

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller rin4. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for £4.15. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

73918 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now

Start selling
£4.15  9x  sold
  • (9)
  Add to cart