A citizens’ jury is a deliberative method where a small group (between 14 and 24) demographically randomly selected participants discuss an issue in detail over several days.
Citizen’s jury is an example of a so-called deliberative method – that is, a method where the focus is on the informed and reflective conversation where various arguments are challenged and debated over a longer period of time.
The inspiration for the method here came in part from the jury system used in the legal systems of many English-speaking countries – where a number of people are chosen at random to judge the issue of guilt in a case. In the same way, the members of the citizens’ jury are randomly selected. The idea is that the method should make it possible to hear from people who do not normally get to speak in policy debates.
A Citizen’s Jury requires between two to seven days for implementation and is a method that is mainly suitable for discussing complex issues where there are no obvious answers. Like other deliberative methods, it works well on topics that have been a source of conflict for a long time and where the debate is polarized.
Compared to many other deliberative methods (such as citizens’ assemblies, for example), citizens’ juries are relatively inexpensive. The relatively few participants make it easier to achieve a good deliberative environment where issues can be discussed in depth. If the participants were recruited in a good way, the small crowd does not mean any disadvantage for the process.
As with all deliberative processes, it is very important that time is given for the thorough discussion and that the information the participants receive is balanced and not biased. It is very important that the process is transparent and includes many different perspectives. The participants have a lot of influence in the process – they formulate their own results, ask questions of witnesses and in many cases can influence who they hear from during the process.
Citizen jury is based on 12-24 randomly selected participants. Participants may be selected in a manner that reflects the demographic makeup of a location or population (for example, in terms of gender, age or other factors). Participants are invited to have an in-depth discussion on a topic or issue. It is important that what is to be discussed is clearly defined, without being too narrow. The topic should be clear but open.
There are divided opinions on how long the process should last. The American organization Jefferson Center, which created the method, believes that it should take place over four to seven days, however many processes take place in practice over two days. There are benefits to letting it take time.
Between 12 and 24 citizens are selected through a so-called random stratified sample – that is to say that the participants are chosen randomly based on a number of criteria – for example gender, age, socio-economic background, etc. Due to the small group of participants, it can be problematic to use of too many selection criteria.
In addition to the randomly selected participants, there are two other groups participating:
Experts/witnesses – who explain the situation, present different perspectives and answer questions
The meeting facilitators who support the participants and guide them through the process, moderate the discussions and ensure that it is fair. Deliberation requires skilled facilitators.
The organization that arranges the citizen’s jury often has a withdrawn role in the process to give the participants a place to be heard.
A citizen jury is a relatively expensive method. This is partly due to the selection process for the participants, which is labor-intensive, and partly due to the fact that many times the participants receive a fee to enable everyone to participate.
Examples of costs:
Many citizen juries take place over two days, often due to a limited budget. However, many experts recommend a process that takes place over four to seven days. A Citizen’s Jury need not meet in one sitting – they can meet for two weekends in a month to encourage individual reflection and discussion with family and friends. However, too long a break between meetings can negatively affect the flow of discussion and participation.