The jury system in England can be traced back to Henry II in the 12th Century becoming formalised under Magna Carta a century later when it can be said that the magistracy also came into being. It wasn`t until 1919/1920 in the aftermath to the Great War that women became eligible both for the magistracy and for juries. From 1825 to 1962 a juror was required to own property. In 1972 the age requirement for jury service was lowered from 21 to 18. In 1988 the maximum age of jurors was raised from 65 to 70 and in 2016 to 75. In 1995/96 an inquiry undertaken by the Home Affairs Committee, suggested that of 875 new magistrates only 22 per cent were under the age of 40. In 2004 the age requirement for appointment to the magistracy was reduced from 27 to 18. In that year there were 22 magistrates under the age of 30. In 2015 Alex Hyne, aged 18, became the youngest magistrate. The following year a 19-year-old law student Lucy Tate was appointed. Latest statistics indicate that currently there are 123 magistrates under the age of 30 out of a total of 14,348 in England and Wales. It`s a widely held view that the number of young magistrates must be increased but there are no statistics on the numbers of each age in this group. It has been argued over recent years by many scientists including Peter Jones of Cambridge University, that the human brain does not fully mature until the early to mid twenties or even later. The most important brain area to become fully “wired up” in adulthood is the prefrontal cortex — the front portion of the frontal lobe. This area handles many of our higher level cognitive abilities including planning, problem solving and decision making. It is also important for cognitive control — the ability to suppress impulses in favour of more appropriate actions. It is arguable perhaps that the 1972 decision to lower the minimum age for jury duty and the 2004 decision to appoint magistrates from the age of 18 was in ignorance of the cognitive maturity of those teenagers.
When oblique reference was made in a recent tweet alluding to this argument I was castigated for the mere suggestion that the lower age level was too young. Some commenters insulted my integrity and position as a retired JP. It is a very sad day when Twitter users ranging from QCs to students to new young JPs cannot debate this topic without resorting to insult. Crowd opinion seeks to block reasoned alternatives and their proponents. Blocking or censoring unwanted opinions is taking our society to a cliff edge most cannot envisage: where democratic freedoms, not least of which free speech, are defined by those with the loudest voice. J.K. Rowling, creator of Harry Potter, and a philanthropist to many causes was recently subject to hostile abuse because her opinions on trans people “offended” many who considered that their opinion brooked no dissent. Recently, “Father Ted” creator Graham Linehan and right wing provocateur Katie Hopkins were both permanently blocked from Twitter for expressing their views.
The Referendum opened breaches not only in society but expanded the license of reasoned debate to include harassment, verbal and physical, loudest voice wins and levels of anti-Semitism perhaps not seen since the 1940s. With the current backlog of crown court trials proposals to have the backlog reduced by enabling a single judge to sit with two magistrates for matters at the lower end of seriousness the issue of age of the latter becomes a topic of some concern. Not many of us would assume a similar level of expertise from an 18 year old vis a vis a 27 year old in any other discipline. Why do we accept that for the sake of “diversity” an 18 year old is adequately to fulfil the judicial function of sitting in judgement on his or her fellow citizens having the wisdom so to do? Perhaps we can learn from the Chinese where the philosophies of Confucius and Mencius prevailed for thousands of years and aging indicates an increase in wisdom.
I agree entirely with your contention that 18 is too young for jury service, as it is, of course, too young to vote with any degree of understanding of the consequences of one's actions. Even now I can remember with disquiet what I felt on getting to the age of 21 at some of the silly things that I did when I was 18.
ReplyDelete