Jury service

From the Jurors side, and point of view, it can seem like a wast of time, money and effort but from a Court's point of view it's a necessary thing to uphold, whether or not you have faith in the Justice System, to try to make sure as far as possible that part of the Magna Carta is held true.......

"No free man shall be captured or imprisoned or disseised of his freehold or of his liberties, or of his free customs, or be outlawed or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against him by force or proceed against him by arms, but by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."

So the unsuspecting man/woman on the Street is liable to try to make sure that the Law and Justice walk hand in hand, where ever possible, by being called up for Jury Duty. It may seem clumsy and inefficient but time is needed by the Courts to vet and decide on the suitability of any would be Jurors.
Some Jurors I have spoke with were eager to be on Jury duties, some were not, and not all were capable of having an open mind in a Court case. It's easy to criticise the Jury System and the Courts but, in my opinion, they do a reasonable job in ensuring that any person being charged in a Court is given a fair and just trial while dealing with a variety of people with a variety of views, biases, and ability to know the difference between Right and Wrong.
One some occasions all the Candidates called for Jury duties can be unsuitable for it, while on other occasions only one or two may be declined. Just because a person is called for Jury Service doesn't mean that the system would become instantly quicker, fairer, and more efficient if they were immediately accepted as suitable, that takes time. Just consider if, by misfortune, you were in the Dock for some offence, you would, I don't doubt, would want a Jury of fair, open minded, intelligent people to be at your Trial. I have seen people who were really eager to serve on a Jury and, to my mind, would convict the Plaintiff whether he/she was guilty or not.....they did not get on the Jury. Maybe some sort of PR exercise could be carried out where successful Jurors, after a Court Case, could be given a fly on the wall look at the next batch of unhappy people being called in for Jury Service....it might just open their minds and eyes.
No Justice System is perfect, but it should be noted that a great number of countries have followed, to a degree, our Justice System and Jury method so there must be a benchmark in it.

 

Heretics are known to burn better and give more warmth to the watching crowd, Jack, than Witches who only lasted for a short Spell!!

 

I've known a lot of people that have done jury duty. Although some of them were very reluctant they still did their best once they were in the court. One person that I know got himself ruled out after the start of the case. He asked to be excused because he couldn't understand the words that had more than two syllables.

They raised the maximum age for eligibility for jury duty a year ago and now people up to the age of 75 can be called for duty.

 

To be honest, I have often thought that the reimbursement policy, decided by the Bean Counters of the Ministry of Justice, is not generous enough and have raised the subject quite a few times, and found that the people working in the Courts, including the Judges, think the same thing. The Clerk of the Court makes sure that the Jury is well looked after with meals, tea, coffee, etc and is always trying to put people at their ease.

That's usually true, mister Q, but there are times when either interested parties/families up in the Gallery can cause a ruckus if unhappy with decisions etc in the Court and have to be "quietened" down, Usually a Judge has enough strength of authority to get order by himself and then sometimes the offending people are removed from the Courts, and can even spend a few hours in a cell for "contemplation".

 

Mine only gets used for projecting fox droppings over the fence and into the farmer's field.