The written summons from the Lord Chancellor arrived during term-time, a clear but stern invitation to perform my civic duty. After much deliberation, I grudgingly agreed. Jury service is like chickenpox; you will probably encounter it sooner or later, and it is best either to get it over with, or avoid it altogether.

I was tempted to use my ongoing degree as an excuse, but it is easier to serve on a jury as a student than it is later in life, juggling weighty responsibilities such as a job, a mortgage, and other trappings of adulthood that we happily banish to the subconscious while at university. I had seen the film ‘12 Angry Men’, and I felt I knew what I had to do. I was determined to be a good juror. The one who was less angry.

The British legal system is often criticized for its middle-aged bias, and throughout my jury service I was aware of a high level of discrimination against the young. As a court security guard pointed me in the right direction he turned to his colleague with the remark: “What are they doing, putting people as young as that on a jury? I mean, what does she know about the world?”

Young people can be invaluable in a jury. Not because we “know about the world”, but precisely because we don't.

Many expressed shock when Lucy Tate, a 19-year-old law student, became one of Britain’s youngest magistrates after the minimum age was lowered from 27 to 18 in 2004. Others were outraged, bemoaning her lack of “life experience”. The 'Daily Mail' website had visitors posting expressions of indignation at this “bonkers” policy, whilst loudly confident of their own worldliness and impartiality. What ‘Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells’ didn’t stop to consider was that this elusive quality, life experience, has no bearing on the skills by which our judges should be evaluated: those of analysis and decision-making. Yet there seems to be a common conception that youth equates to incompetence. My verdict on the jury service is that youth is no barrier to understanding and judging a case.

During my time as a juror, I found that while differences of opinion were inevitable, these views could also be categorised more or less by age. The older jurors were, as a rule, faster to pass judgment and more certain that this judgment was right. The younger jurors were more uncomfortable with making snap decisions. And while the jury as a whole was committed to giving the right verdict, the older jurors were generally more ready to believe in guilt. By contrast, the younger jurors were less cynical, more open to the possibility of the defendant being innocent. The result was a conscientious and balanced jury where old and young complemented each other.

The increased self-certainty that comes with age has more to do with the gradual consolidation of prejudice than with an increase in wisdom

In my experience, it was the younger jurors who were most eager to examine the evidence closely, while their older counterparts were quick to declare that the accused ‘looked shifty’. What they lacked in experience, the young made up for in open-mindedness and willingness to consider other points of view. It is important that juries contain a range of backgrounds, opinions and personalities in order to best represent the general population. Otherwise what hope is there of a fair trial? Young jurors are an important part of achieving this balance.

In the film ‘Insignificance’, Einstein observes that “knowledge isn't truth. It's just mindless agreement”. This is especially pertinent to those sitting on a jury; there is a pressure simply to find some common perspective, a struggle for consensus that runs the risk of confusing truth with collective speculation. Life experience no doubt has many benefits, but it may also make us creatures of habit, often with more faith in guilt than in innocence. I’m not saying we should all blinker ourselves with rose-tinted optimism, but while young people may be, on occasion, too trusting of the world, they also tend to be more wary of their own judgments and conclusions.

It may be that the increased self-certainty that comes with age has more to do with the gradual consolidation of prejudice than with an increase in wisdom. The moderating influence of critical introspection is left behind. We believe they ‘dunnit’ because they probably ‘dunnit’; human nature likes to stereotype. Prejudice is by no means the preserve of the old, but it does stem from such self-certainty. Young people can be invaluable in a jury, just as we are in society. Not because we “know about the world”, but precisely because we don't.