jury duty

[tigerlily11]

I am watching a show on BBC 1 and one of the subjects is jury duty. A man who refused was charged and given a fine for refusing to take part.
Do you think this is right. Should people have a right to say no if they don't want to take part?
Do some people, like the man talking now who has done it twice so far and likes doing it, take part on a jury because in some weird sense they like to pass judgement on others?
Could you do and have you? Or have you refused to do it? is there a legitimate reason not to take part i.e illness?
I personally couldn't do it. I am not in a position, I feel, to pass judgement on another human.
Thanks for your time

[dibble1]

I recently did it and thoroughly enjoyed it. I think it is your duty if the Crown asks you.

[marval]

I did it at the Old Bailey, a most interesting time. I think you have to have a very good excuse not to do it.

[1955]

I have done jury service once and it was quite interesting - demands a lot of concentration and you do go home thinking about it. In this man's case was it not the threat of intimidation from the accused that made him not want to do it?

[tigerlily11]

That is what is happening at the moment in one particular case because one of the problems was intimidation.
I suspect there are plenty of people out there who are willing to do it repeatedly if requiered.

[tigerlily11]

Is the system the same in, say the USA? Are you called to duty there or what?

[carrot99]

I've done it twice.

The first time I was on a three week case where the jury, which was down to 10 members due to sickness, couldn't agree and the whole thing had to be rescheduled for a new jury. The second time only myself and another woman said not guilty, we didn't think there was sufficient evidence but as the other ten said guilty - the accused was convicted. I'm pleased that, although it didn't help the accused, I stuck by my own opinion and didn't follow the herd as I know some of them did just to get away faster.

You can be excused if you are responsible for children/adults and can't get help or if you have a booked holiday - but your jury service is likely to be deferred to a later date.

[hippyhoppy]

I did it last year.. The original date was due to be over the Christmas holidays, but I sent an e-mail saying I'm a single mother with the children off school, so they deferred it and I did it in the summer... We had two cases.. the second one was thrown out because of the wording ... apparently a crow bar isn't a 'weapon' as it has a primary function as a tool, so the case was dropped... frankly I wouldn't have wanted to meet the bloke in a dark alley!!!

[LeMarchand]

Done it twice (was unemployed the second time I was called, so saw no reason not to go). Like others have said, it's one of those things that you should do as part of your civic duty.

Watch the first season of "Murder One" for an idea of how jury service works in the US. The basic idea is the same, but the lawyers get a number of "vetoes": if they think you wouldn't judge their client fairly, they can argue for your removal from the jury.

[Rev Sermon]

The only problem in forcing someone to sit on a jury who really doesn't want to is that surely there judgement will be flawed. If your primary motive was to get away rather than to see justice served you are not neccessarily going to say what you believe is right.

[keyplus90]

Personally I do not have any experience. Although few years ago a very close friend of mine received letter but as he had serious language problems so he was excused very easily.

Now very recently (2 months ago) my wife received letter but was excused too as my father in law was suffering from bone cancer (he passed away in November 08) and she was looking after him plus we have a child one year old. So I guess these two were valid excuses too. Personally if I ever get a chance I would go for it as I believe it is a kind of experience in your life.

[jno]

There are excuses for not doing it, as others have said. I once got let off because I had a booked holiday. I said I'd do it when I got back, but they didn't bother. I did get chosen again a few years later, and did it. It was very interesting. You should do it, as Eddie says: if you think the jury system is a good one, you should be prepared to do your it. (And even if you don't think it's a good one, and all accused should just be taken out and shot, it's still the system we've got, so you should still play your part.)

Incidentally, you don't 'pass judgement', you just decide on the facts: listen to the case for and against and decide whether you think he did it.

[jake-the-peg]

If it were optional think about what sort of people would predominate.

I'm thinking Jerermy Kyle viewers.

I don't think that would be a good iddea

[R1Geezer]

It's easy to get out of if you want to. Just turn up wil the telegraph under one arm and in a suit with a blue tie and the defence will object, alternatively turn up in suit made of wheat grass, with a copy of the Guardian and a pride + CND badge and the prosecution will object, tada! Another problem solved by the wisdon of the Geezer!

[New Judge]

Unfortunately, Geezer, such challenges by the defence are now much more difficult than they used to be. They now have to show a genuine reason for objecting to the inclusion of a particular juror, and carrying the Telegraph is not among them. The thinking behind this is that, in the same way that the jurors should not pre-judge the guilt or innocence of a defendant based upon his appearance, defence advocates should not pre-judge the attitude of a juror based on the newspaper he reads.

To address your question, tigerlily, you are in a position to make such a judgement because the law in this country says that you are. It is not optional. You have an obligation to take part and there are very few legitimate reasons you can put forward to refuse. You will be summoned to attend and will be asked to take an oath declaring that you will judge the case(s) put before you based solely on the evidence presented. If you refuse to do so you may be prosecuted.

[jake-the-peg]

Why unfortunately NJ?

Do you feel that the defence (or the prosecution) ought to make stereotype judgements on jurors?

Do you think the American system works well?

[New Judge]

No certainly not jake.

“Unfortunately” was probably the wrong word to use. I used it really to help Geezer overcome the disappointment that the latest problem which he had so helpfully “sorted” was perhaps a bit more tricky than he realised. It was not meant to express my own opinion.

I do not believe anybody should have the right to opt out of jury service (save only in very exceptional circumstances such as because of chronic illness or disability). I have done jury service. I was pleased to be asked to do so and saw it as an enormous privilege. This was not because I wanted to be in a position to send anybody down, but more because I believe the jury system, whilst not perfect, is probably about as good as you can get with an adversarial legal system such as we have.

It is disappointing that people like tigerlily view their obligations so negatively. What I think is often overlooked by those holding such views (that they feel they cannot sit in judgement on somebody else) is that they have the same power to acquit as they have to convict. If I found myself in the position of facing serious charges I would far rather be judged by 12 tigerlilies and jakes (and perhaps even one or two Geezers!) than His Hon. Lord Justice Cocklecarrot sitting alone. Any one of them is likely to be far more worldly wise than his Lordship and so more capable of determining matters of fact.

[R1Geezer]

lighten up guys, all tongue in cheek!