Jury duty - was tougher than I expected.

[Saluki]

I got called but I had a doctor's note. I got called and was expected to be there the day that I was donating a kidney to hubby. I was excused jury duty. I haven't been called since. Hubby has never been called.

 

[Bollo]

Do you get paid for doing jury service (per day?)? What about travel expenses?
Are you obliged to attend if you are called up?

No, I believe you only get actual expenses (I only had a ten minute walk, so no exes for me). If you're self employed I think you can claim something for loss of income, but it ain't much. I don't know the details of that. If its going to bust your business, you can make an appeal to the judge not to be picked before a potentially long trial starts, but the final decision rests with him or her.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

In one case I sat on I'd just cycled by the place where the alibi was based and therefore knew the story to be completely false. I sat there for ages waiting for the prosecution to ask the simple question that would have demolished the defence. It never came.

 

[slowmotion]

I did two weeks in about 1989. Southwark, I think. Two days in court and eight days pissing about waiting for nothing to happen, actually. There were two cases, shop pilfering and handling stolen goods. We were a pretty liberal bunch in the jury pool and we didn't have too much trouble with the concept of "doubt" in such minor cases. It would have been a lot harder if there was the prospect of a mad axe murderer on the loose if we made the wrong decision. At the time, it really depressed me that, in different circumstances, my freedom could be at the whim of people like me.
I really can't see how the jury system can survive in its historic form given the obsession with communication and social media, and reality fame shows. People get judged by what they look like today. Ask Simon Cowell how to improve the jury system?

 

[Svendo]

Just finished my two-week stint as a good citizen. In week one I was called to Court three times but wasn't in the 12 finally selected. On the second Tuesday I got a case, which lasted three days. We spent all of yesterday afternoon arguing and ended up asking the judge if we could go home because our heads were spinning, we were exhausted and the discussion was going nowhere. So we went home with eight "guilties" and four, including me, "not proven beyond reasonable doubt". Last night was tough as I so much wanted to discuss the case with my family but was, of course, prohibited from doing so. Back to the Jury room this morning and three of us nay-sayers had changed our minds and it took about an hour for the fourth to see it from our point of view. So "Guilty", and from his reaction the judge seemed to have anticipated our verdict.

I found the two weeks slightly surreal and the actual case unexpectedly tiring and stressful. Anybody else done Jury duty and found the same?

Yep. Similar decision process, except about 4 hours and opposite verdict. I was left with mixed feelings, as I still change my mind and feel for the victim and witnesses. As someone said though, if he did do it, he'll get caught for something sooner or later. Prosecution barrister was pants, or possibly couldn't be that arsed with a clearly dodgy case.
Did get on another trial first, but case was stopped when the victim turned out to be lying about something although not directly relevant, and admitted other things as bad as the offence in question. Proper Jeremy Kyle episode-esque!
Did get a lot of reading done though, and got to try interesting takeaway food in central XXX, rather than the chips/sandwiches/kebabs in XXX. Best was the burrito place in the Arndale market, Panchos I think.

(edited to remove more obvious contempt of court)

 

[Noodley]

You need to be special.

Spectacular, I think you'll find...

 

[Maz]

You need to be special.

 

[Risex4]

?

 

[Mr Haematocrit]

Did a touch under four months at the old Bailey for a case that made national news when I was younger, it was interesting on a number of levels.

 

[mark st1]

Did a touch under four months at the old Bailey

Knew you were shady from the off !

 

[Hill Wimp]

In England and Wales, under the amendments introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, disqualification for police officers (and police civilian personnel) is now limited to whilst they are serving - it is not permanent. Once they retire or move to another job they can be called.

(Just looked at the online version of the Juries Act 1974 - they still haven't updated it with all the amendments from the 2003 Act - that's 10 fecking years ago! )

Serving Police Officers can be called for Jury service and quite regularly do.

 

[Risex4]

So what are people's opinions of "professional" juries?

I did my stint a few years ago and wouldn't mind about doing it again, but then I find both the law and 'factual interpretation' interesting subjects. Although I did take away one big question mark.

My experience was that juries quickly polarised into three groups; those who instantly formed a verdict heavily influenced by prejudices or speculative character judgments (one way of the other), those who wanted to talk about the facts and arguments in a detached manner, and those who just weren't interested or engaged enough to form an opinion themselves, and just swayed between whichever group was 'winning' the argument,

Although I get the principle of "12 equal peers", there is a flaw in the system in that those 12 peers are not all guaranteed to enter the deliberations are truly equal. If you had a strong contingent of group 3, and a sufficiently forceful contingent of group 1, then the verdict wouldn't be based on fact, but upon (potentially false) preconceptions backed by a majority who weren't inclined to counterbalance it.

I would be up for an opt-in system - perhaps in return for bigger recompense for time rendered - where the people interested in performing the duty properly and diligently were called, but those more worried about their own lives to spend time considering their decision and the impact it could have on multiple other lives could be left in their own self-absorbed bubbles. Just my thoughts like.

 

[swee'pea99]

Did it once, found it interesting. Two things stand out: how crap the barristers were - constantly sucking up to the judge in the most nauseating way, long after her body language made it very clear she found it repellent, as well as being just generally inarticulate and clunky; and how good the judge was - not just razor sharp, but compassionate as well. When the defendant - a sad junkie woman who'd 'received stolen goods'...some pathetic gift from her junkie boyfriend - was found guilty, the judge said: "Well, what can we do? Prison is out of the question - wouldn't do anyone any good. A fine would be pointless - the defendant has no money, and nothing much of anything else as far as I can see. So I propose to refer her to social services, and see if they might be able to suggest some way out of this awful situation she seems to have found her way into," And that was that.

 

[Pale Rider]

how good the judge was - not just razor sharp, but compassionate as well. When the defendant - a sad junkie woman who'd 'received stolen goods'...some pathetic gift from her junkie boyfriend - was found guilty, the judge said: "Well, what can we do? Prison is out of the question - wouldn't do anyone any good. A fine would be pointless - the defendant has no money, and nothing much of anything else as far as I can see. So I propose to refer her to social services, and see if they might be able to suggest some way out of this awful situation she seems to have found her way into," And that was that.

An attractive disposal, unless it's your stuff that's been nicked and flogged for pennies by junkies.

It also gets wearisome when you see the same person, time and time again, with counsel on each occasion asking for a 'last chance'.

And as I've heard judges say to persistent offenders a few times over the years: "It has to be prison, if only to give the public a break from your offending."

 

[Hill Wimp]

And as I've heard judges say to persistent offenders a few times over the years: "It has to be prison, if only to give the public a break from your offending."[/quote]

You've been in the same courtrooms as me and they sometimes add that "one way or another the public will be paying for you".