There will always be a shifting social/moral/political zeitgeist To compose a jury entirely of any one narrow generation is inherently flawed IMO. I really cannot see how it would work.
12 Angry Men is one of my favourite films. But it's still a morality play. A fairy tale. And the jury were all angry white men deciding the fate of an accused ethnic-minority male. Imagine a jury composed entirely of angry women deciding the fate of an accused male rapist? Etc...
It's almost as if our legal system already put some thought into building juries from a societal/generational cross-section? 🤔
Given, it's less than perfect. But it's surely better than grossly imperfect?
And yet magistrates, who let’s face it are the people the bulk of us would be up in front of if we did something vaguely naughty, are almost entirely middle aged and older, and selection positively favours those who have had some life experience. It’s almost as if the judicial system appreciates value in experience! Not too many judges with spots either.
It's not a bad idea to make jury duty compulsory on retirement.
It is a bad idea to compose juries entirely of pensioners.
Go prepared to be ... frustrated by stupid people who despite being told you can only make a decision based on what you’ve heard in the court room will make up elaborate “what if” scenarios.
Quoted for truth. Two-thirds of the jury I was in genuinely couldn't understand the concept of "innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt". Scary. If there weren't so many people trying to worm their way out of this important role then the guy might have gotten a fairer verdict.
It’s supposed to be a cross-section of society
Was originally supposed to be a jury of your peers. Those of similar standing and education, who have the ability to in theory fairly judge.
Now it's just whoever, including idiots. But a cross-section of idiots perhaps.
Apart from I proposed that they served on the month of their 67th birthday….so if my idea came into force today that first group would have just turned 15 years old when the General election of 1966 was called that elected the Wilson government that made homosexuality legal. Sadly they also missed out on voting for the MPs that voted for abortion to be legal in 1967. Apart from that, great supposition!
Fair point, although I could pick any one of a number of minorities to illustrate the point, If you were obviously eastern european and the victim of crime, would you feel comfortable reporting it if you thought the jury in any trial was likely to have overwhelmingly voted brexit? Whether or not all 67 year olds would treat immigrants differently isn't really the point, it's that the jury should hopefully be enough of a mix that no one prejudice takes hold and that everyone else in the court believes that.
If you were obviously eastern european and the victim of crime, would you feel comfortable reporting it if you thought the jury in any trial was likely to have overwhelmingly voted brexit?
So you are pretty much saying that as an eastern european you best not get nicked in pretty much the whole of the North East of England then, irrespective of the age of the jury?
So you are pretty much saying that as an eastern european you best not get nicked in pretty much the whole of the North East of England then, irrespective of the age of the jury?
Or Black anywhere in the UK
While the make up of a jury is supposed to be representative, the point is also that you don't need it absolutely representative, because one or two members can 'derail' the process and hold the other (prejudices, if appropriate) to account.
So using the NE example, and picking say Sunderland which was pretty leave - actually 62:38, extrapolate that to a jury and you'd have say a 7:5 or 8:4 split - and those 4 or 5 have sufficient power to make sure someone isn't convicted based solely of 'political prejudice'
I would love to be picked for jury duty. I was summoned a number of years ago, before I had British citizenship, so never got to do it. Now I am a British citizen, would be pleased to serve. Is there any way of increasing your chances?
Frankly anyone who actively wants to be picked for jury duty should be automatically disqualified.
Really, you can’t think of a type of business that this might be the case? Really? e.g. A friend who is a contract civil engineer. He employs a PA/Secretary/business manager and a CAD jockey.
Fair enough, I was thinking in terms of larger businesses. Apologies.
Yes the current crop of oldies might be wired that way but I think that is as much about the fact they were born in the 1940/50s ... I don’t plan on suddenly getting racist/homophobic in 20 years time. Are you?
Sure, but reasons / excuses why they're that way is irrelevant, the point is that they are more likely to think that way than someone 40 years their junior. Times have changed since they were young and their attidudes haven't changed along with it. I'm not planning on becoming a racist when I retire, of course not, but who knows what will be acceptable in another twenty years which isn't currently.
Too much ageism in this thread for my liking. Yesterday it was sexism. What will it be tomorrow chaps?
That's a bit of a stretch* CG. However I think I might go for her<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">balist.</span>
I shall bias myself against anyone called Basil or Rosemary or <span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">could be regarded as an old sage.</span>
I will instead listen to Spice Girls albums and agree with all your posts.
*hopefully what the defendant will complain when detained at her Majesties pleasure.
there was no opportunity for the Defence to reject someone ‘cos they were wearing a ‘hang the bastard’ t-shirt as far as I could tell
People get confused by US tv shows, but rejecting a juror because of their attire would generally not be acceptable in the UK. However a T-shirt with an offensive slogan on it might well find you having a discussion with the judge and the rules of contempt being explained.
