100% tevredenheidsgarantie Direct beschikbaar na betaling Zowel online als in PDF Je zit nergens aan vast
logo-home
Summary Criminology Unit 3: AC 2.5 write up model answer €5,14   In winkelwagen

Samenvatting

Summary Criminology Unit 3: AC 2.5 write up model answer

9 beoordelingen
 2210 keer bekeken  9 keer verkocht
  • Vak
  • Instelling
  • Boek

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...

[Meer zien]

Voorbeeld 1 van de 2  pagina's

  • Nee
  • Ac 2.5
  • 13 januari 2023
  • 2
  • 2022/2023
  • Samenvatting

9  beoordelingen

review-writer-avatar

Door: carneybradshawnathaniel • 1 maand geleden

review-writer-avatar

Door: fathiaadetoro • 8 maanden geleden

reply-writer-avatar

Door: rin4 • 6 maanden geleden

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

Door: amrita90 • 10 maanden geleden

reply-writer-avatar

Door: rin4 • 10 maanden geleden

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

Door: pologneruth • 11 maanden geleden

reply-writer-avatar

Door: rin4 • 11 maanden geleden

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

review-writer-avatar

Door: esssaaa • 1 jaar geleden

reply-writer-avatar

Door: rin4 • 1 jaar geleden

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

review-writer-avatar

Door: nevehastings • 11 maanden geleden

reply-writer-avatar

Door: rin4 • 11 maanden geleden

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

review-writer-avatar

Door: h15 • 11 maanden geleden

reply-writer-avatar

Door: rin4 • 11 maanden geleden

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

Bekijk meer beoordelingen  
avatar-seller
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.

Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:

Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews

Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews

Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!

Snel en makkelijk kopen

Snel en makkelijk kopen

Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.

Focus op de essentie

Focus op de essentie

Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!

Veelgestelde vragen

Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?

Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.

Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?

Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.

Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?

Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper rin4. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.

Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?

Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €5,14. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.

Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?

4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 72042 samenvattingen verkocht

Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen

Start met verkopen
€5,14  9x  verkocht
  • (9)
  Kopen