Must be a more efficient way for doing that. Must cost a fortune in jurors just hanging about for an hour told be told they are dismissed phone up tonight.

What’s the logic in it?

Deterrent to comitting crime innit!

Imagine how unpleasant it would be if you had to deal with all that faffing about and be locked up at the same time.

Jail would be a blessed relief.

Now sitting here with a conundrum should I go back to work, or just let them claim the full day, since I got someone into replace me. I get paid as normal anyhow. Hmm

Yeah, that sounds like a tricky decision 😉

Neighbour and wife both called up, more crime than usual?

IHN – Member
Yeah, that sounds like a tricky decision

shoosh. Pretending to feel guilty about it for 20 seconds! 😆

Thats defrauding your employer… court number 1 mofo!

😆

I’msat in the office praying for crime to take me away from prepping my next weeks sentence. There is definitely less crime being brought to court.

Juries are, despite the occasional quirk common to any enterprise that involves humans,the best and fairest system for resolving an individuals innocence or guilt. This is so especially as we move to a justice system where the professionals freedom to use judgement and discretion to make decisions is removed.

Juries work being a juror is a pain but without you we would not have justice.

Why do you think there are so many pubs near courts?

I suggest you utilise them.

When I’m running the country (not long now comrades!), we’ll be dispensing with all this expensive nonsense and applying a much much arbritary system to establish guilt. Just hope you’re lucky….

They should sub contract the work of jury’s to Internet message boards.

I did 6 weeks of jury service last year on a long fraud case.

Lets just say I got a lot of cycling in!

It was all a good experience right until the spotlight was put on us. I think it was 30 odd hours in the jury room by which time I wanted to commit a crime myself – don’t know how some people get dressed in the morning!

Massively complex admin to be done by different services, and often in different parts of the country.
I did jury service locally, sheriff came from out of the area, police witnesses from 3 other areas, lawyers from the central belt. Ambulance service and prison service were also involved. Plus it may well be cheaper to keep jurors hanging around than to pay the lawyers
Don’t know why this comes to mind when conversation turns to lawyers
[video]http://youtu.be/lcW8eruxhbc[/video]

The actual experience of jury duty was very good, although the processes were slow at times we had good advice from the sheriff and the court staff were attentive

Never done Jury duty. What happens if, say, all the jury want to convict. And the victim is obviously guilty. But you want to go the other way due to the ‘crime’ being stupid. Ie; possession of drugs, TV licence evasion? Is it just a case of majority wins?

The Mrs got called up last May, and was excused as she looks after our autistic son (nobody else will :lol:) then she got called up again in Jan, had to do all the forms over again. They wouldn’t/couldn’t check their records from less than a year ago. Right PITA.

A pal just did a two week stint at the high court in Edinburgh. I’ve not asked him much about it but he said it was harrowing, horrific and the worst thing he’s ever done in his life

jambourgie
the jury are expected to reach a unanimous verdict all guilty or all not guilty, when the judge gets bored waiting he can issue the majority direction saying he will accept a majority verdict of at least 10 one way or the other but would he would still like a unanimous verdict , if the jury still cant agree or come to a 10 or 11 in agreement then the jury is discharged and the case goes for retrial with a fresh jury.

Never done Jury duty. What happens if, say, all the jury want to convict. And the victim is obviously guilty. But you want to go the other way due to the ‘crime’ being stupid. Ie; possession of drugs, TV licence evasion? Is it just a case of majority wins?

That’s not how it works, and I really hope you wouldn’t go in with that attitude if you were called up for jury service.

The whole point of a jury is to decide whether the person on trial is guilty *beyond a reasonable doubt*, otherwise they’re de-facto innocent. You do not make decisions based on the severity of the alleged crime, who it affected, whether their eyes are too close together etc etc. How can you get to adulthood and not know this?

If the crime is petty or there are other mitigating factors then it’s for the judge to decide.

You regularly hear about people on juries who approach the judge privately because they’re seriously concerned that some of their colleagues are too thick to make an informed decision.

So I’ve had a productive afternoon so far, just sat and restrung my guitar with d’addario NY XLs, feel like cracking strings. And I think I’ve all but decided I’m going to rattle the best part of 600 quid on a piano! 😆 Was in the shop earlier playing around, think I’m going to settle on a roland FP30! Just need to figure out the best way to finance the later!

Nice them Rolands, my cousin’s got one. I’m quite tempted, wanted a cheap upright, but wouldn’t be able to play it when the kids are in bed so a digital would make more sense.

aye, was originally focused on a cheap casio cdp130, but after poking around in the shop, the roland does seem much better, nearly twice the price mind, but still, I reckon in a few years when I can play(I’m a guitarist that wants to learn), I’ll be glad of the difference spent. Even being inexperienced I could tell it was much better.

Yes I spent my two weeks doing this a couple of years ago; I failed to be selected three times then got a short case in the middle of week 2. The judge told us he wanted a unanimous verdict and three jurors, me included, were not convinced beyond reasonable doubt. We argued all Thursday afternoon and that was the most sleepless night in my life. By Friday morning, faced with another day of argument and possibly a return for a third week, we three doubters had somehow managed to convince ourselves the bloke might be guilty after all. It wasn’t a very satisfactory experience, although I’d been looking forward to trying it all my life.

You do not make decisions based on the severity of the alleged crime, who it affected, whether their eyes are too close together etc etc. How can you get to adulthood and not know this?

Of course I know this. I was enquiring about how the process works in practice. It’s quite reasonable to not have a working knowledge of how a court works if you’ve never been in one, so I’ll ignore your patronising tone

What I was saying regarding ‘going the other way’ was from a moral perspective. If you don’t believe that the ‘crime’ that the defendant is in the dock for is a crime. Then it is your duty – to your own code if nothing else – to push for an acquital. For example; I’d like to think that if it was the 60’s and I was called as a juror to decide on the fate of a chap that had committed the crime of being gay, that I’d try to swing the verdict.

Maybe in situations like this it’s best to declare your views beforehand like in America where you have to declare if you’re anti-death penalty etc

I still reckon there should be an IQ and reasoning test prior to being selected for jury duty.

Surely a reasonable level of intelligence should be established before someone gets to decide on the fate of another, often based on complex and conflicting evidence.

Done it twice – first time, got sent home at end of first week without having got on a trial.

Second time, waited until Wednesday for a trial which was a load of BS. pretty unanimous Not Guilty in less than 30 mins.

Got sent home, with no need to come back the following week.

Glad I did it, despite the hanging around.

Take a book.

tpbiker – Member
I still reckon there should be an IQ and reasoning test prior to being selected for jury duty.

Surely a reasonable level of intelligence should be established before someone gets to decide on the fate of another, often based on complex and conflicting evidence.

But isn’t it ‘a jury of your peers’?

If everyone is stupid, why should the jury be any different? They must be familiar with the stupidity.

I would just vote them guilty. At least then you will sleep well knowing a guilty man is not walking the streets.

Who gets informed if you get sent home and forget to go into work?

In my defence m’lud. It was explicitly made known that you should go back to work, but only if you can, if you got someone to replace your shift, happy days! 😆

tbh I’m only really taking advantage of it today(perhaps tomorrow), rest of the week i will need to go back if i can, cover is short then. 🙁

If you don’t believe that the ‘crime’ that the defendant is in the dock for is a crime. Then it is your duty – to your own code if nothing else – to push for an acquital. For example; I’d like to think that if it was the 60’s and I was called as a juror to decide on the fate of a chap that had committed the crime of being gay, that I’d try to swing the verdict.

Interesting question and i don’t know the real answer but this is where a clerk of the court would be able to guide you.

I suspect the legal interpretation would be that you are asked to decide based on the facts if the person did what they are accused of doing, not whether what they are accused of doing is actually a crime or not; that is decided by ‘cleverer’ people than you and I in big houses in central london. The pragmatic solution might be that the clerk finds a way for you to not sit on that trial.

It all started out as a bit of a jolly when I got sent home on day one.

Second day I was selected for a domestic violence and rape trial.

There were two peoples lives and one persons freedom at stake. It was one of the most intense, distressing and stressful experiences of my life.

No one on the jury took it anything other than as a serious duty with real consequences. We spent 3 days deliberating.

In some ways I’m glad I did it but I hope I never get selected again.

If selected I will take it seriously btw. Though doubt it’ll be anything major, it’s just the sheriff court, not the high court.

I’m guessing non payment of fines or something like that? (canny say ive any experience of the inner workings of court, so no idea tbh, once got chosen for high court, but never got picked.)

But isn’t it ‘a jury of your peers’?

If everyone is stupid, why should the jury be any different? They must be familiar with the stupidity.

Well in that case do i get to request someone with a 1st class honours from a top university, and a similar level of IQ to me? i’d be happy with someone who wasn’t ‘thick’ to be honest. I know plenty of people who are eligible for jury duty who whould be discounted by that latter requirement.

tpbiker

– Member
I still reckon there should be an IQ and reasoning test prior to being selected for jury duty.

Surely a reasonable level of intelligence should be established before someone gets to decide on the fate of another, often based on complex and conflicting evidence.
All day long. The jury I was on had 2 young people who insisted on arriving at a decision based on ignoring the agreed facts in favour of their interpretation of events. We nearly had a crime scene in the jury room.

1st class honours from a top university

Hull?

Obviously a few here didn’t read the instructions to jurors that you are not allowed to discuss what went on in the deliberation room even after the trial has finished – Contempt of Court Act 1981

It’s all fun and games while you don’t do anything and get sent home/time off work. But my god does the seriousness hit you like a brick when you get took into court and actually get told a bit about it.

Really glad I never got picked there. Don’t think I could have stomached that for 3/4 days.

I sat on a case where the evidence was distinctly dodgy, coming from a person known to have a grudge against the accused.
It being a Friday, most of the jury were happy to go for a quick guilty verdict but myself & another argued & argued until we got the not guilty verdict. I feel good about that.

Mind you, the first case was a defence so stupid the accused deserved prison for that, let alone the actual crime!

Jambourgie – it happens sometimes that despite the evidence being clear of the crime the jury refuses to convict on moral grounds – IIRC called a perverse verdict. Clive Ponting was one. Clearly leaked classified information. Acquitted. Randle and pottle was another. Helped Blake to escape justice. Acquitted completely against the evidence.

I theory the crown can go for a retrial