Lesson video

Hi, I'm Mrs. Allchin and I'm going to be taking you through this citizenship lesson today.

I'm going to give you all the information that you need to be successful and I'm also going to pause and tell you when to complete a check for understanding or a task.

Hope you enjoy the lesson.

This lesson is a deliberate discussion.

Should all citizens take part in the legal system and it comes from the unit of lessons, how can we play a part in the legal system? By the end of this lesson, you'll be able to consider the arguments for and against citizens taking part in the legal system.

As it's a deliberate discussion, it's important that we all follow the ground rules.

We need to make sure that we're listening to others.

It is okay to disagree with each other, but we should listen properly before making assumptions or deciding how to respond.

When disagreeing, challenge the statement, not the person.

Respect privacy.

We can discuss examples but do not use names or descriptions that identify anyone, including ourselves.

No judgement.

We can explore beliefs and misunderstandings about a topic without fear of being judged, and we can choose our level of participation.

Everyone has the right to choose not to answer a question or join discussion.

We never put anyone on the spot.

Our keywords for today's lesson are rationale, which is the reason or explanation for why something is done or believed.

Analyse, which is the process of examining something in detail, breaking it down into its parts to understand it better.

Volunteer, which is choosing to give time to help others, usually without being paid.

And justice, fairness as a result of the application of a law, usually by a judge in society.

And our lesson outline for our deliberate discussion should all citizens take part in the legal system? First, we're going to look at why shouldn't citizens take part.

So we're going to consider those arguments.

And we're then going to look at why should citizens take part, and consider those arguments.

We're gonna start by looking at why shouldn't citizens take part.

Deliberative means to carefully consider and discuss a topic, taking time to consider different viewpoints and weigh all the relevant information.

When carefully considering the question why shouldn't citizens take part in the legal system, we will need to have a rationale, make a short statement to summarise the overall argument, of examples, so use statistics, case studies, or other evidence to support the rationale.

Analysis, provide more explanation of the viewpoint, ensuring it is clear, and then make a link.

So linking back to the rationale with a closing statement.

Let's have a quick check for understanding.

What are the missing word.

So rationale, make a short statement to summarise the overall what? Examples, use statistics, case studies or other what to support the rationale.

Analysis, provide more explanation of the viewpoint, ensuring it is what? And link, link back to the what with a closing statement.

Let's see how you got on.

So rationale is make a short statement to summarise the overall argument.

Examples, use statistics, case studies or other evidence to support the rationale.

Analysis, provide more explanation of the viewpoint, ensuring it is clear.

And link, link back to the rationale with a closing statement.

So let's have a look at what Lucas is saying.

"I have reservations about systems getting involved in the legal system because they don't always have the right training and might make mistakes or be unfair.

It can also be stressful, take up a lot of time and even be unsafe.

Depending too much on volunteers could lower the quality of the justice system.

And trying to change the law doesn't always work or make sense if people don't fully understand it." So Lucas there is giving his opinion about maybe why citizens shouldn't take part in the legal system.

And now he's asking, "Can you think of any examples to help me analyse my rationale?" So we're working our way through that table.

So just pause for a little while and think, is there anything, any examples that Lucas could use to really, really support his argument? So we've got lack of expertise.

Citizens might lack the experience needed to make fair and informed decisions about the law when acting as magistrates, justices of the peace or a jury.

There could be bias.

Citizens might bring a wide range of personal opinions and bias when taking part in the legal system, which might lead to them being unconsciously biassed towards or against someone or something.

Let's hear what Sandra has to say.

"Recently, I was a member of the jury on a murder case.

We had to hear and see some devastating things.

Although I am proud I helped justice to be served, I found the process very upsetting." And that brings us to time and emotional strain.

Volunteering in legal roles, for example, by being a member of the jury can be time consuming, stressful, and potentially traumatic, depending on the case that you're hearing.

And that's going to be especially so when dealing with serious cases, such as rape or murder.

Citizens may struggle to cope with this emotional strain and the time commitments might also cause problems in their day-to-day lives.

For example, the 2013 trial of Vicky Pryce, who was accused of taking speeding points for her husband, highlighted serious concerns about the jury system, particularly whether ordinary people are able to serve in complex cases.

The jury struggled to understand basic legal concepts, asking questions that revealed confusion and a lack of understanding about their responsibilities, such as whether they could base their verdict on personal feelings instead of evidence.

Their eventual dismissal by the judge raised doubts about whether ordinary citizens are always capable of delivering fair and informed decisions in court.

There's also the lack of training.

So if you think about special constables, they need to fit their training in around their job, often over weekends or intense evening courses.

Some people might argue this doesn't allow them time to fully digest the training in the same way that police officers can.

So Billy's saying, "When I became a special constable, I completed the special constable learning programme, which is what officers receive in the first part of their training too, but I needed to balance this alongside my job.

Lots of my officer colleagues completed a three-year degree or apprenticeship instead." There is also the argument that it could undermine the need for legal professionals.

Some people may feel that using volunteers for roles such as magistrates or justices of the peace undermines the qualifications and experience needed to become a civil or crown court judge who are people that have got many, many years' experience working within law.

People might also be against allowing a jury to decide guilt in a crown court.

Although they are guided by the judge, they don't have any legal qualifications.

And if we think about cases that end up in a crown court, these are serious cases where the sentencing could be quite high.

So having a jury decide whether someone is guilty or not guilty, some people might have concerns about that.

And also ineffective law reform.

Citizens' attempts to change the law, so now we're talking about citizens actually having an impact on the law.

So their attempts to change the law, either through active citizenship or trade union reform, are not always successful, but can still be time consuming and emotionally taxing.

Some people might therefore hold the view that lawmaking should be solely the responsibility of elected decision makers and citizens shouldn't get involved.

For example, despite years of heavy campaigning from pro-legalization of cannabis groups, recreational cannabis is still classified as a class B drug in the UK.

Let's have a check for understanding.

Match the head to the tail to provide a list of reasons why some people think citizens shouldn't play a part in the legal system.

So our heads, we've got lack of, time and, undermining the need for, ineffective law, and personal.

And then the wails, we've got legal professionals, expertise and training, emotional strain, bias, and reform.

So take a minute to try and match the head to the tail.

Let's see if you've matched those correctly.

So these are a list of reasons why some people think citizens shouldn't play a part in the legal system.

So we've got lack of expertise and training, time and emotional strain, undermining the need for legal professionals, ineffective law reform, and personal bias.

For task A, I'd like you to create a closing statement for Lucas.

You need to ensure you are summarising why citizens taking part in the legal system could be problematic.

Make sure you include examples from the lesson to support your closing statement.

So Lucas is saying, "I now need to link back to my rationale with a closing statement.

Can you help me?" Pause while you have a go at this task? When creating a closing statement for Lucas, you may have included, "In summary, involving ordinary citizens in the legal system could lead to problems. For example, juries do not always understand complex legal issues, like in the 2013 speeding trial of Vicky Pryce where the jury struggled to understand the law and had to be dismissed.

Magistrates, who are also members of the public, may lack the legal training needed to make fair and informed decisions.

Special constables, even though they volunteer to help, might not have had enough experience to handle difficult or dangerous situations properly.

Additionally, when citizens tried to change the classification of cannabis, they find it very difficult, showing that citizens can sometimes have little influence over important legal matters, especially if they lack experience and the knowledge on how to actually make an impact." So we've looked there at some of the arguments and the reasons why citizens taking part in the legal system can potentially be problematic.

We're now going to look at the other side.

Why should citizens take part? Our deliberate discussions involve taking time to consider different viewpoints.

It is important to look at the other side of the argument for the question why should Citizens take part in the legal system? So our rationale.

Make a short statement to summarise the overall argument.

Then choose examples, statistics, case studies, or other evidence to support the rationale.

Analysis, provide more explanation of the viewpoint, ensuring it's clear, and then link, link back to the rationale with a closing statement.

So let's hear from Jacob.

My rationale is that citizens should take part in the legal system because it helps make the law fair and representative of everyone.

When citizens are jury members or magistrates, they bring real-life experiences and different opinions.

It also gives people a chance to join trade unions or campaign to change laws.

Even though it can be difficult, public pressure has helped change legislation in the past and it shows that the legal system can improve when citizens get involved.

So Jacob is asking, "Can you think of any examples to help me analyse my rationale?" So just as we did before, now pause and see if you can help Jacob.

So life experience.

Ordinary citizens on juries or acting as magistrates or justices of the peace bring different life experiences and perspectives which can help make balanced decisions that are representative and relatable to society.

When everyday citizens are involved, the legal system reflects the views and values of the general public, not just legal experts or those in power.

Let's have a check for understanding.

Some people believe using ordinary citizens as magistrates, justices of the peace or jury members can help with, is it A, belated decisions, B, balanced decisions, or C, benevolent decisions? And it's B, balanced decisions.

And also, using a jury, which are peers, to decide guilt dates back to Magna Carta in 1215, which states that no free man should be unfairly imprisoned and that guilt should be determined by a jury of peers.

The use of a jury is seen as a democratic and fair way to decide guilt, and they are guided by a judge throughout to ensure fairness.

It's also democracy in action.

Citizen involvement in the legal system supports democracy by allowing people to have a direct role in how justice is carried out.

It allows citizens to play a crucial role within our justice system rather than separating the two.

And it's also a way to challenge unfair laws.

Citizens can work together and campaign to change laws that they think are unjust or outdated, such as through protests, petitions, or joining trade unions.

This can lead to law reforms, which are more in line with what the public actually wants.

So Laura's saying, "My aunt is a GP and a member of a trade union.

She has gone on strike in the past, alongside other union members, to campaign for better working conditions." And trade unions will put pressure on government to ensure better working conditions for workers.

They have also successfully contributed to changes in laws that impact workers.

For example, the Equality Act 2010, which makes workplace discrimination against nine protected characteristics illegal, and the National Minimum Wage Act in 1998, which established a minimum wage for workers in the UK.

Let's have a check for understanding, Identify and correct the mistakes in the paragraph.

So democracy in action.

Citizen involvement in the legal system prevents democracy by disallowing people from having a direct role in how justice is carried out.

It bans citizens from playing a crucial role within our justice system and separates the two.

So where are the mistakes and can you correct them? So democracy in action.

Citizen involvement in the legal system supports democracy by allowing people to have a direct role in how justice is carried out.

It allows citizens to play a crucial role in our justice system rather than separating the two.

Hopefully you managed to find and correct those mistakes.

It can also build community trust.

Citizens may be more likely to trust the legal system if they feel they have a voice and see others that are like them from their own communities taking part in it.

So Billy is saying, "I love working in my community as a special constable.

I understand the needs and dynamics of my community, and the people here know me and they trust me.

I'm able to support on the ground, helping to stop crime and keep my local area safe." There could also be an argument for increased understanding and engagement.

Some people might say that actually using citizens within the justice system, for example, as members of the jury or as special constables, improves understanding of our legal processes and that could actually help to build a respect for our legal processes too.

The law exists to support everyone and the rule of law states that we should all be equal before the law and have access to justice.

If citizens are involved in these processes, legal understanding and engagement could increase.

Let's have a check for understanding.

Can you correct the word order of this sentence? So let's have a look.

Some people justice argue that using understanding citizens within the system improves of our legal processes.

It's all in a bit of a mess.

Can you unscramble it? Let's see how you got on.

So it should read, "Some people argue that using citizens within the justice system improves understanding of our legal processes." For task B, I'd now like you to create a closing statement for Jacob.

You need to ensure you are summarising why citizens taking part in the legal system could be positive.

Make sure you include examples from the lesson to support your closing statement.

So Jacob is telling us, "I now need to link back to my rationale with a closing statement.

Can you help me?" So pause while you have a go at this task.

When creating a closing statement for Jacob, you may have included, "In summary, it is important for citizens to be involved in the legal system because it helps make justice more connected to everyday life.

When people are part of juries or act as magistrates, they bring real-world experience.

Special constables can also build strong, positive relationships in their communities and keep people safe as a result of their volunteer role." You may have gone on to say, "Citizens can also make a big difference by speaking out and fighting for law reform.

For example, trade unions helped pass the Minimum Wage Act in 1998, showing how citizen action can lead to fairer laws.

Overall, involving citizens in the legal system makes it more democratic, trustworthy, and fair for everyone and therefore they should take part." In summary of our deliberate discussion should all citizens take part in the legal system, involving citizens in the legal system has both advantages and disadvantages.

The challenges include jurors not always understanding complex legal issues, magistrates who lack legal training, special constables who may be less experienced in serious cases, and citizens struggling to create legal change.

However, public involvement can make the legal system more fair, relatable, and democratic.

For instance, juries and magistrates bring real-life experience.

Special constables are able to build trust in their community through volunteering, and citizens can successfully influence law reform, like trade unions helping to secure the Minimum Wage Act.

That brings us to the end of today's lesson.

Well done for all your hard work and I hope that you'll come back to some more citizenship lessons in the future.