Equality by lot

Following a piece previously published in The Conservative Woman which was “less than enthusiastic” regarding citizens’ assemblies, a reader of the magazine wrote with her first hand experience as an allotted juror in a citizen jury convened to discuss assisted dying policy in the UK.

The testimony is very interesting and shows the typical inquisitive, perceptive, sensible and open-minded attitude one may expect from a random member of the public (as opposed to the tendentious single-minded attitude exhibited by the opinion writer who authored the previously published piece). While describing the jury process rather favorably and rejecting the label “choreographed charade” that was used by the opinion writer, the testimony quite reasonably expresses displeasure with the fact that the process was presented as being a decision-making process while in fact all decisions were being taken elsewhere and independently of the ongoings in the jury.

My involvement began on February 29, when a letter about the jury arrived. It was addressed ‘To the Resident’ and mine was one of 7,000 addresses selected at random. The jury was to consist of 30 people. Those willing to participate were asked to register on the website of the Sortition Foundation, which had been engaged to recruit jury members ensuring they were broadly representative of the population.

Evidence was presented in four workshop webinars over April and May. The evidence was comprehensive and I’ve no criticism of the way it was presented. The case was made on both sides of the argument, in many cases very powerfully. There were personal testimonies, again on both sides of the argument. These were, for me, the strongest pieces of evidence.

Faith perspectives were covered by a professor of bioethics, with personal testimony given by an imam. I was surprised that no priest or Christian minister gave evidence but I doubt that they would have said anything significantly different.

What also surprised me about the whole exercise was that at no time was the elephant in the room mentioned, viz that AD would be legalised whatever the jury decided.

So was the process a ‘choreographed charade’? They are not the words I’d use based on my experience. But with the speed the government is moving on AD, a pace I did not expect, and with legislation likely to be well on the way to becoming law before NCOB’s final report is published early next year, I think it would be fair to describe the whole exercise as performative – going through the motions.

Filed under: Applications, Press, Sortition |