ABSTRACT
Lay participation is a central element in the organisation of criminal trials in the United Kingdom— both in jury trials and in the magistrates' courts. Lay participation is necessary in trials dealing with more serious accusations, minor cases are heard by one professional judge. This kind of dividing line between trials with and trials without lay participation is not necessarily an argument against the strong claim that democracy requires lay persons to decide in criminal trials. The historical support for the claim that 'lay participation is necessary to protect defendants' is impressive. The question remains whether—independent of the historical background—the moral significance of lay participation could be derived from the principle of democracy. The 'active citizenship' argument seems convincing at first glance, especially if one considers the normative side. On a closer look, however, some doubts remain. If citizens' commitment and active participation are to be promoted, such participation ought to be primarily voluntary.
