Jury service

I'd love to do jury service, I really would. If only they would call me....

 

... ... .... Ok ...

 

Thanks M, I've had a good read through sounds like you had a intense second case. I thought you could spill the beans after a trial has finished ? just not about what happened in the debating room

I probably would've enjoyed my duty more if I actually had social skills . I am very reserved anyway but in a room full of strangers I am even more reserved, all the time I was there other than answering to the registry I barely said a word. Felt a bit guilty about it everyone else must think I am a right miserable sod

 

No, they probably thought you were a shy, reserved person some might even say: a deep thinker!

 

Wonder why? cant they find enough poor sods, or is more of a money saving campaign.
Get the pensioners on the jury as they come for free, no recompense for lost earnings etc.

 

Interesting! Made me search and came up with this:

 

Even pensioners are permitted legitimate expenses

As for finding enough people, yes, that can be an issue:-

3. Delaying or being excused from jury service
You may be able to delay (‘defer’) jury service, for example if:

• you’ve already booked a holiday
• you’re having an operation
• your employer won’t give you time off work

Source: Jury service: Delaying or being excused from jury service - GOV.UK​

You might find this article from "The Independent" interesting too: Two-thirds of people avoid jury service and, it also suggests, in addition to that number, reasons why certain groups of people were ineligible (which, it states, accounts for 24% of the population).

Also, do bear in mind that there are reasons why you may not be eligible to sit on a case, even when you are called and attend; for example, if you know anyone (or are related to anyone) who is involved in the case.

 

Yeah like getting there two hours early, messing around trying to find a place to park because you cant park all day after 9 am.
Then being told they dont want you.
The whole set up is a joke, well would be if it wasn't serious to those being press ganged.
Kind of reminds me of the kind of thing that goes on in communist countries.

 

It is very serious to those relying on that jury too Judges, barristers, clerks, Police, Crown Prosecution Services, Social Workers, Probation Officers, victims, witnesses, the defendants, friends and families, professional witnesses etc..

It is no joke: everyone involved in the process, from start to finish, no matter what their role/involvement is affected by the process one way or another and to one degree or another. I doubt *anyone* walks away from any court case genuinely laughing with glee with no impact whatsoever.

 

I agree it is a very serious process, just cant see the point in involving people who dont have any bearing on the matter, dont know anything about the law, and dont really want to be there, in the main.
We pay judges massive amounts of money every year, then expect the bloke in the street to come up with a verdict .
What are we paying the professionals for

 

The jury doesn't need to have knowledge of the law, that is not what they are there for; knowledge of law is what their legal team is there for. The role of the jury is to hear the evidence presented, then go away to discuss it and then decide, based on the evidence presented, if the defendant is guilty or not guilty. Simple!

By your same argument, the defendant often states they "don't have no bearing on the matter" (weren't me, Gov!); doesn't know anything about the law and really doesn't want to be there either!
Sort of puts the defendant and the jury on an equal footing in that case, doesn't it?

Having a trial by jury means that the defendant is being "judged" (ultimately) by his peers and not by a paid professional.
Each member of the jury brings to the debating table a unique set of skills, experience and their own, unique, way of looking at things.
No matter how cynical you may be about the process, unless someone comes up with a better one, it is the only one we have!

What is the alternative? Would someone prefer to be "judged" by paid professionals only who, it could be argued, might be swayed by the political climate of the moment; their current position in the career ladder; their personal persuasions; who they may assume needs to be brown-nosed; who pays them the most?
How would that be fairer? It is open to abuse and corruption, clearly!
No, wait ... ... doesn't that happen in communist countries?

The professionals are paid to a) know their stuff; b) present the pertinent facts to the court and the jury (if they have elected trial by jury; some do not); present such a strong case that the jury finds in their favour. They would be failing those they represent if they did not.

Judges, during the trial, note down *everything* and I mean every-little-thing-said-by-whom-and-when (really tedious stuff!) and then go over it once again at summing up! They do not miss a trick (well, if they are worth their salt they don't and they really don't!) any anomalies, the jury are sent off and the Judge thrashes it out with the barristers and then the jury return once they have argued it out. Hence one of the reasons why a juror might spend time "hanging around" not seeming to do very much yet, much is going on in the background

Personally, I would much prefer a trial by jury than a trial by media/social media or the local gossips! At least I would get someone who *knows* the law to represent my case, as facts, and then, it would be "judged" by people from all walks of life, with a mixture of skills and experiences who will interpret the evidence/facts presented before them and make a decision based on that!