Citizens Juries
Citizens juries are another attempt to hear people's voices.
Like a jury, the main principle of a citizens’ jury is the belief that once a small sample of a population have heard the evidence their deliberations can fairly represent the perspectives of the wider community. This reasoning contrasts with today ’s most common quantitative and qualitative methods for representing the public ’s views.
In most citizens’ juries a panel of non-specialists meets for
a total of 30 to 50 hours to examine carefully an issue of public significance.
The jury, made up of between 12 and 20 people serves as a microcosm of the
public. Under the model of the citizens’ jury most commonly used in the UK and
US, jurors are often recruited via a random selection of people taken from the
electoral roll. Jurors hear from a variety of specialist witnesses and should be
able to discuss as broad or narrow a range of issues as they see fit. The
function of participants in a Citizens’ jury is different from many other
methods of qualitative research or deliberative democracy for the following
reasons:
 |
Jurors are given time to reflect and deliberate freely with
each other on the questions at hand, occasionally assisted by a neutral
advisor. |
|
They are given the opportunity to scrutinise the information
they receive from witnesses, whom they interrogate themselves. |
|
They are expected to develop a set of conclusions or ‘vision ’for the future –which need not be unanimous. |
Blackburn Citizens Jury
In spring 2004 the Joseph Rowntree sponsored Blackburn Citizens Jury was launched. Invitations were sent to 5000 local people from a number of selected wards to join the jury. 180 people responded. An oversight panel of local organisations was formed to check the rigour of the process.
The Oversight Panel selected twenty jurors names. Although this was a random process, quotas of groups that might otherwise be under represented were chosen:
|
Approximately equal numbers of men and women |
|
Eight people from minority ethnic communities |
|
Four or five people from each of the five age categories |
|
At least one disabled person |
|
Two people not necessarily registered to vote |
The jurors attended a day workshop at which they debated which single issue was the most important effecting the quality of life in Blackburn. They chose 'the role of police in tackling under age abuse of drugs and drink'. The 20 jurors then met of a period of 4 weeks to question and listen to a number of 'expert witnesses' selected by the oversight panel to present different viewpoints on the issue. At the end of this period jurors produced a list of recommendations which were launched a couple of days before the local elections.
A full report of the project is available here 'Using Democratic spaces to promote social justice in Northern towns'. Tom Wakeford, Bano Murtuja, Peter Bryant. Institute of Policy and Practice, University of Newcastle. 2004.
Jurors are still meeting to try and make sure recommendations are implemented.
Nanotechnology Citizens Jury
Greenpeace and scientists from Cambridge University have launched this citizen's jury to allow citizens the opportunity to debate the impact of this hugely important technology. Residents from in and around Halifax in West Yorkshire have heard presentations from former employees of Glaxo and ICI, the ETC group, Social Audit, University of Sheffield and ActionAid Uganda.
We believe this is a hugely important piece of work which could have a big impact on a large number of people in the future. The jury will make their recommendations at their launch hosted by the Guardian on September 21st For up to date information check Nanojury
For recent Guardian coverage check out 'Its good to talk' from the Guardian July 28th 2005.
Prajateerpu Citizens’ Jury
In India the Prajateerpu Citizens’ Jury (literally meaning “people’s verdict” in Telegu) was initiated by a coalition of local NGOs working together with the International Institute of Environment and Development (Michel Pimbert) and the Institute of Development Studies (Tom Wakeford). It allowed small farmers the opportunity to gain the political space, which allowed their voices to be heard in the debate on World Bank and DFID investments in the displacement of 20 million people from the land in Andhra Pradesh.