train jurors. this would mean they are better preapred for the task they need to perform. however, it could add to the cost of trials and result in further delays.
appoint a specialist foreperson. they could advise the jury on court procedure, rules of evidence and assist in jury deliberations. however, jurors may rely to heavily on the foreperson for advice during the trial and when undertaking jury deliberations, resulting in an outcome that was obtained by one person alone rather than through discussion and debate with all jury members.
limit avenues for not participating in jury duty. juries would be a more representative cross-section of the community. however, unsuitable jurors may be chosen.
provide better pay and more education to jurors. may result in more people wanting to participate in jury service if randomly selected. however, would add to the costs for the legal system.
reduce or eliminate the number of peremptory challenges allowed.
reduce jury size. this would decrease costs and allow judges to reach a verdict more quickly. however, no proof that a jury with fewer people would be more effective and quicker in deciding cases.
abolish civil juries. judges are more qualified to resolve cases and award appropriate damages for complex matters. however, this would mean trial by ones' peers did not take place.
simplify jury directions. could limit re-trials because of errors in jury directions. however, may result in longer trials due to the need to summarise many complicated elements and points.
provide reasons for jury verdict. would quickly indicate whether their decision was sound and an appeal could be made if a verdict was returned based on an incorrect assumption or unsound argument. however, may crate significant burden on jurors who need to document reasons on usually complex and technical matters.