Rights or rituals: why juries can do more harm than good

Citizens' Juries are used in Europe and the USA as one means of improving public involvement in policy decision-making, particularly in the area of local government. In this brief article, the author explores the more negative aspects of Citizens' Juries that have emerged, using the case of the Welsh Citizens' Jury, as an example. Because of the scientific nature of the issue being discussed - human genetic testing - the jury were briefed on the background of genetic testing. Problems arose concerning the potential subjectivity of the jurors because of their prior knowledge and experience. Additionally, the danger of experts in the 'gatekeeping' role of deciding exactly what information should be made available to the jurors is discussed. Information given was also, often pseudo-expertise. Thirdly, the author proposes that Citizens' Juries are only symbolically and ritually similar to the Court model upon which they are based. The final shortcoming given was that the Jury were not representative of the Welsh nation.