Jury Duty

Spoonmage said:
the possibility of jury duty is one of the prices we pay for living in british society.
Click to expand...
If it's a price we all pay, then why am I doing it when neither of my parents have done it once in their lives? Also, like ayase said, you're only paying a price if you chose to participate in something. No-one really has a choice in this.
 
the only problem I can see with that is that if too many people conscientiously object, then the courts would grind to a halt.

in the end, Jury service comes down to luck of the draw.
 
I did jury duty at the start of January last year.

As others have said it's mostly sitting round watching daytime TV waiting to be called. Even when you have been there's a lot of going back to the jury waiting area while the judge discusses things with the defence and prosecution.

I guess it depends on the type of case you get as nobody wants something really unpleasant but I found it interesting and would happily do it again if asked.

Oh and if you don't get called the first week then you will be guaranteed to be the second as they fix it to make certain.
 
I have done 2 jury before one was for a robbery charge and the other one was a murder case. It was hard to make the decision and must be hard for the families involved to go through that.
 
ayase said:
I would make a terrible juror, due to not really believing in the legitimacy of our justice system. I wonder if that's a valid get-out clause?
Click to expand...

It can be. As long as you are not taking the mickey. You are actually meant to rule yourself out of serving on a jury if you have any reason why you could not serve within the system as it is explained to you within the courts. For example, if you have some form of prejudice against any particular group within society and for whatever reason that prejudice would interfere with your ability to decide solely on the facts presented in court you are required to inform the judge during the selection process and then you would be excused. A typical example would be a religious prejudice against homosexuality or against other religious groups. Racial and ethnic prejudice counts as well. Hatred of the Police for perceived racism or other inappropriate behaviour within the Police service would also count.

If your excuse amounts to 'I cannot be bothered' then you could expect to suffer. A genuine lack of belief in the legal system that is well explained, even if in rough and ready terms would be fine though.
 
Can I have a genuine lack of belief in the legal system for ideological reasons but instead construct an excuse which attempts to make a mockery of the rules (like claiming to be a self-hating white person) for fun? I've been a salesperson most of my life, I have no doubt in my ability to sell people any old ********.

Hey, that could even be the reason - I think that if the defendant or their lawyer was a good enough salesperson (or perhaps a secret hypnotist - yeah, that's better) I think the defendant or their lawyer may be a secret hypnotist and as such they could convince the jury of their innocence even if they were guilty, and as such I have no confidence in myself, the other jurors or in fact anyone other than Derren Brown to render an accurate verdict.

That's even neater. "Your Honour, I feel I must discharge myself from jury duty as it is my firm conviction that only Derren Brown is capable of accurately determining someone's guilt or innocence."
 
Do remember you can be done for contempt of court if you are asked to do jury service and try to take the piss to get out of it. A general dislike or disbelief in the system will not get you off, religious based prejudices might. If you try pulling a fast one on the judge and he decides you are taking the piss then you could be at risk of a fine or a number of days in police cells ....
 
Oh, so once again religious people's beliefs are afforded more respect than the beliefs of the irreligious, great. At least I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Derren Brown exists. So political conviction means nothing? Anarchists and Voluntaryists who don't believe in the legitimacy of the justice system are still expected to serve on juries?

Would the cells be individual or communal? I think I could hack a few days on my own. Maybe I could write a book about my life and political convictions while I was in there.
 
ayase said:
Can I have a genuine lack of belief in the legal system for ideological reasons but instead [...]
Click to expand...

No. You are either genuine or you are not, and the courts generally do not look favourably on people who are not being genuine but are instead trying to take the mickey. It is not about affording greater respect to one group over another, it is about having enough sense not to try to troll or bait someone who has the ability to exert power over you.
 
I can't think one thing and say another? I rather think I can. Do they reasons for doing something even matter if the result is the same? What's the difference between someone not wanting to do jury duty because they can't be bothered and not wanting to because they have a strongly held belief which is recognised by the authorities? Squat. The end result is that they get out of having to do it. Surely the person who couldn't be bothered could easily claim to have one of those beliefs, or do you not think people are capable of deceit?

It's interesting, I think people are more bothered by my flippancy than my actual position. Yeah, I don't hold our political and legal establishments in the same high regard as a lot of the population, I think they're worthy of ridicule and despite knowing the extent of their power I'm not particularly scared of them. Should all keep our heads down and tow the line whether we agree or not because of fear? The Clash were right: Everybody's doing just what they're told to 'cause nobody wants to go to jail. That doesn't sound like good sense to me.
 
I think the Derren Brown thing would rightly be seen as trolling, but it is inherently silly that you can be allowed to have prejudices in law due to religion. I'm sure that if you could prove you were too prejudiced against the system to give someone a fair trial they'd have to consider it, and it's not like you can't point to thousands of conversations you've had on an anarchic bent to support your argument.

It would all be far more sensible if people could opt in, though we'd then end up with certain demographics dominating juries which would make them no longer representative of society as a whole. There'd probably also be pressure from businesses to make their staff opt out of the system to avoid downtime, which would then lead to extra fuss and legislation. Personally though, if I were on trial I'd rather the jury be made up of people with at least some vague interest in the process...

R
 
You most certainly can think one thing and say another Ayase. The point is that you should have enough sense not to say something that will obviously get you into hot water. That's nothing more than common sense.

It's not silly at all Rui. It is a practical position that only relates to serving on a jury. The purpose of declaring your prejudices to the judge is to prevent you from acting on them to the detriment of justice and at the cost of the public purse. Take the recent failure of the trial of Vicky Price. If the jurors who ended up behaving in unhelpful ways had declared their bizarre prejudices based on religion and whatever else (and their wish to decide on innocence or guilt based on their own fantasies about the religious beliefs of Ms Price) before the start of the trial then they could have been excused and a lot of time and money would have been saved. That's what it boils down to. Either the individual is capable of carrying out their duty to only decide on the basis of what they see and hear in court or they are not. If not, then it is only right that they be excused, or punished if they are treating the courts, the law, and their fellow citizens who are giving up their time to serve as jurors, with contempt.
 
I think the best thing people can do if they want to understand my position is read up on the ideas of voluntaryism, the non-aggression principle and the concept of self-ownership because they explain pretty well why I don't believe people should be forced to serve on juries and should be free to decline for any reason, even if they are perfectly capable of carrying out their duties. There is no way anyone should be threatened with force by the state if they haven't committed an aggressive act against another person.

If this meant that 90% of people declined and you only got a particular type of person serving on juries, so be it. The lack of willingness to take part would probably tell you something about the legitimacy of the justice system. You shouldn't force people to do something against their wishes just because someone else has decided that's what's "fair" and the reasons for their declining are no-one else's business.

And (correct me if I'm wrong) but I think what Rui was agreeing with me in finding silly was that religious beliefs should be held in any higher regard than non-religious beliefs - Implying one is somehow more or less of a conscious choice than the other.
 
You really need to distinguish between the world as it is and the world as you would like it to be Ayase.

You may find that a lot of people do not agree with your assertion that the state should not threaten force against anyone unless they have committed an aggressive act against another person. For a start you need to properly define aggression. Would you include theft in your definition of aggression? Burglary? Fraud? Destruction of property? I am guessing not. Yet most people seem to be very happy that the state not only threatens but carries out violence against people who do those things by depriving them of their liberty and forcing them to stay in prisons against their will.

In the real world most everyone that wants to get out of jury service does get out of it and without consequence. The 'threat' from the state to enforce cooperation and service is really no such thing. It is a tool to prod and cajole, much like a parent might make mock threats to their child to get them to behave. And yes it does mean that the rump of people who are left to serve on juries actually does contain a fairly large proportion of people who really should not be selected. What does that tell us about the legitimacy of our legal system? Who cares? That's what we have, and however broken that's what we are going to carry on having until Parliament sees fit to change it.
 
"Your Honour, I feel I must discharge myself from jury duty as it is my firm conviction that only Derren Brown is capable of accurately determining someone's guilt or innocence."
Click to expand...

Darren Brown would probably agree with you :lol: . Is there anyone more intensely smug than that man?
 
Back
Top