Last week I fulfilled my civic duty by undertaking jury service at my local Crown Court. Despite comments from friends and family about it being onerous, dull, and something to get out of (!), I was actually really excited to have the opportunity to see inside the criminal justice system and understand how it worked. I wasn't disappointed.
Despite a fair bit of sitting around on the first day waiting to be selected for a jury, the whole experience was fantastic. The case I sat on was complex but interesting. The judge, prosecution, and defence were all very clear communicators and presented the evidence well. The judge in particular was brilliant at engaging the jurors in the whole process, clarifying points for us, giving us directions in law to think about, and doing a very objective summation of the evidence at the end, which really helped us jurors pick out the salient points and details from 4 days worth of evidence to ultimately reach our verdict. Before anyone starts making 12 Angry Men assumptions, I'd like to say at this point that my fellow jurors were a very diverse mixture of people, who all took their job very seriously, and brought much balance and common sense to the process of justice.
Before I went on jury service, John Craig told me that jury service consistently has the highest satisfaction rating of any public service interaction. Reflecting back on my experience, I feel very satisfied with my experience, privileged even, and it got me thinking about what it is about jury service that means that interacting with it is so much more a rewarding experience than so many of our other public service encounters?
The first thing is perhaps an obligation to participate. Contrary to popular belief, it is much harder to get out of jury service than many people hope! You can of course defer but you can actually only postpone for 12 months per summons. So there is a definite 'carrot' element attached! It is also an intrinsic characteristic of our justice system that you are tried by a jury of your peers. These people are unconnected to both defendants and complainants, and bring with them a wealth of understanding of life - human nature, motivations, weaknesses, and common sense. I think this characteristic is one which all jurors I spoke to seemed to recognise and value. They were reassured that if they were ever in the dock, the people trying them would be average, impartial, rational fellow citizens. As a juror you feel you are engaging with people, rather than a system.
For me, however, I think the single most important factor in the high satisfaction ratings is the level of power and responsibility that you are given once you are sworn into a jury. Very few people in their day-to-day lives really have the power to change someone's life, whether that be the defendant or the complainant. Jurors play an absolutely critical role in the justice process - they are the ones who decide if a defendant is guilty or not guilty. Nobody else in that entire process makes that decision. That makes the amount of power and control you hold as a juror huge. Given that most cases require a unanimous verdict, it means that you also have that power as an individual, not just as a collective. The views of a 19-year-old student are just as valid as those of a 63-year-old professional. As individuals, you all have the power of influence. This is typically unheard of in public services.
Finally, it is perhaps clichéd but appropriate to also say that with great power comes great responsibility. This has never been more true than as a juror. As your influence is so great, I certainly felt a huge responsibility not just to make a decision, but to make the right decision. Regardless of which decision I made, someone's life would change. I felt a real weight of responsibility on my shoulders which made me engage with the in a very sincere, deep way, which ultimately make it hugely satisfying.
This has all got me thinking about our work, and how we can apply these twin principles of influence and responsibility to our work in public services. If we could get these elements incorporated into more aspects of service interaction could we achieve greater satisfaction with our public services?
Clearly, much has been done already - the drive to improve patient choice, for example, to give patients power and control about where they receive their treatment or give birth. By changing governance structures through co-operatives and mutuals we are seeing citizens given greater involvement and influence over how their services are commissioned and run. We are seeing this in our work on Transforming Early Years and also through our research in the Engagement Ethic.
Crucially, we need to ensure that both influence and power are given to users and citizens in a way that is real and meaningful. We need to ensure that we keep these interactions and roles genuine to ensure that they do not become trivial or tokenistic, but instead change the dynamic between the citizen and the state in a powerful and positive way.
Comments
Post new comment