Channel 4’s recent drama-documentary The Jury has reignited debate about one of the most enduring institutions of British justice: the jury system. By placing ordinary citizens in the position of arbiters over complex, emotionally charged cases, the programme asked a provocative question: are juries fit for purpose in a world of complicated evidence, social bias, and media saturation?
The programme’s implicit challenge is whether 12 strangers, with no formal legal training, can really deliver justice. Yet rather than undermining juries, The Jury highlights something deeper: the messy but vital role of ordinary citizens in decision-making. If justice is too important to be left solely to lawyers, perhaps governance is too important to be left solely to politicians.
Winston Churchill famously described democracy as the “worst form of government, except for all the others”. His wry observation still resonates. Democracy can be slow, sometimes frustrating, and rarely perfect. It produces compromises, not always clarity. Yet the alternative — rule by experts, elites, or technocrats — risks alienation, inequality, and fragility of our politics to navigate an increasingly complex world.
The jury system is itself a microcosm of Churchill’s paradox. It is flawed and inconsistent, yes, but it embodies a democratic principle: that citizens, not just judges, should decide questions of liberty and guilt. Juries exist not because citizens are legal experts, but because justice requires legitimacy—and legitimacy requires participation.
Participation requires preparation
The same principle has gained traction through citizens’ assemblies and other participatory approaches. Around the world, selected groups of citizens are asked to deliberate on thorny issues from climate change to constitutional reform. Ireland’s citizens’ assembly on abortion law paved the way for a national referendum that transformed reproductive rights. In the UK, the Climate Assembly and Scotland’s Citizens’ Assembly have tested similar methods.
These initiatives share the spirit of the jury: trust ordinary people to weigh evidence, debate, and reach conclusions. But unlike juries, assemblies are not about individual cases. They are about shaping collective futures. Their value lies not in replacing parliaments but in enriching them, injecting fresh legitimacy and lived experience into policy debates.
Yet The Jury also reminds us that participation isn’t straightforward. Watching ordinary citizens wrestle with complex testimony, you realise that involvement can easily slip into confusion, frustration, and bias. Because, of course, no one can reasonably be expected to master constitutional law, climate science, or economic policy overnight. Effective participation requires clear information, skilled facilitation, access to expert testimony, and time to deliberate. In this sense, citizens’ assemblies improve on juries. Participants are given structured processes, balanced evidence, and professional support to help them reach informed conclusions.
The case for skills, confidence, and education
Participation is not just about process; it is about people. For many, entering a formal decision-making space is daunting. Lack of confidence, prior exclusion, feeling marginalised or fear of ‘not knowing enough’ can silence voices, particularly from underrepresented groups.
That is why investment in civic skills is essential — and why the UK government’s new push to teach democracy in schools is so important. If children grow up learning not only how democracy works but how to practise it — through debate, decision-making, and collaboration — they are more likely to feel confident in shaping the future. Initiatives including Smart Schools Council, supported through The Young Foundation’s social investment fund, are vital here: giving pupils real experience of participation, voice, and collective problem-solving.
The Young Foundation has long argued that climate action, social justice, and local change must be participatory, people-focused, and rooted in place. Its investment in projects that build civic leadership and confidence ensures that democratic engagement is not an occasional experiment, but part of everyday life. Ordinary people bring lived experience, creativity, and values that experts often overlook — but with training, support, and practice, those contributions become sharper and more impactful.
Towards a participatory future
‘The Jury’ may have unsettled viewers about the imperfections of citizen decision-making, but it should also remind us of its necessity. Justice feels fairer when it is judged by peers. Policy feels more legitimate when it is shaped by citizens, not just politicians.
At a time of declining trust in institutions, growing polarisation, and complex global crises, expanding citizen participation is not optional — it is essential. Citizens’ assemblies, democratic education, and participatory networks are part of a broader renewal. They offer a way of rebuilding trust, sharing responsibility, and harnessing collective intelligence.
But for participation to be meaningful, it must be taken seriously. That means recognising the value of citizen involvement, while also investing in the skills and confidence to make it work. Democracy, like the jury, may be imperfect. But with care, education, and courage, it remains our best hope of navigating the challenges ahead — together.
Community Criminal justice Education and employment Social action Systems change Posted on: 11 September 2025 Authors: Helen Goulden OBE,