The way jurors perform their function have not changed for centuries. They sit down, listen, no notes can be taken most of the time, and after a few days or a few months of trial, decide on the case. In a world where writing is now key, where aural transmission of culture and knowledge is inexistent (without images/video, I mean), Lord Judge of Draycote's comments is certainly a viable and valuable one. Yes, childrend and young adults cannot sit anymore to just listen and do nothing else. I would certainly not dismissed its comments on how this inability to listen can affect criminal trials. Now should we change the way a jury trial is conducted?
The fact of listening with no writing is an intrinsic part of an adversarial trial; it is viewed as being the only way to arrive to a fair decision. Introducing writing would certainly modify the process of reaching a decision. But that does not mean the adversarial trial would sell its soul to the devil. Financial trials (complex frauds) are actually hindered by this traditional process and a fair decision cannot be reached. So time for a change? Work from criminologists and linguistics could help understand the impact writing could have.
"Web-savvy young make bad jurors because they cannot listen, says Lord Chief Justice" (7 November 2008) and TechDirt on the same day