Been selected for jury service, (!!!!!!!!)

[Deleted User]

Jubilee line corruption trial

At 21 months it holds the record as the longest ever jury trial in the UK. One juror lost both her wedding and her job, and the trial collapsed after another juror went on 'strike'.

agrinnall

I've recently read a crime novel which suggested that jurors in Los Angeles only receive $5 a day.

BarryBlue

My wife was called for jury service a few years ago and it was a complete waste of time. She, like many others in quite a large group, never actually saw the inside of a courtroom. It was two weeks of sitting around drinking tea and reading the Kindle. Some days she would be home straight after lunch, others she was there until about 4.30. Meanwhile, an important project she was supposed to be implementing at work was delayed, costing the council thousands.

I always thought I would be happy to do jury service but her experience changed my mind. Now I would try to get out of it if I could, given the shambolic way it was organised. So-called 'duty' doesn't bother me these days either, given the state of the country. I ditched all my altruistic activity when Cameron started banging on about his Big Society.

Undervalued

Smartsaver7 wrote: »

It may be better if we just had a pool of juriors from all sections of society who have volunteered to serve who could be randoml;y picked with those with say financial knowledge being chosen for complex fraud cases etc, this would save time.

No, as soon as you go down that route you are immediately restricting jurors to certain sections of society and probably a disproportionate amount of older people.

If you have people with a particular knowledge for certain trials then you are losing the concept of being tried by your peers.

Some countries require a minimum education standard to serve on a jury. There is perhaps an argument for that as long as it is kept to a fairly basic level but even then there are risks.

There is already quite a problem with the fairly narrow pool of people that tend to put them selves forward to become magistrates. They act both as judge and three man jury on more minor cases and are generally not the peers of the people they are trying.

Doshwaster

As long as it wasn't a horrible child murder case or one which went on for months then I'd be interested and willing to do jury duty but I've never been selected. Maybe I just live a low crime part of the country.

Gavin83

London50 wrote: »

Incorrect Read second paragraph link below



https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/dec/22/teenager-who-skipped-jury-service

This is a different situation. The person in that story attended a trial and then failed to turn up on the last day. This could potentially require the trial to be reheard at huge expense and effort. I'm not at all surprised he was jailed for this.

However not turning up at all doesn't disrupt a trial. There are plenty of other people to pick from. If you can show me where anyone has been jailed or even given a criminal record for not showing up at all then I'm all ears.

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Glad you said that, I thought I was the only one who thought like that.

But then again I consider it my duty to vote as well.

steampowered wrote: »

I think this is a very selfish attitude. Jury service is important. It is a pretty small part of living in a modern society which respects the rule of law.

Ok I'll ask the both of you this. How much would you be willing to lose before you decided the money was more important and you wouldn't attend? Would you be willing to lose your house and your job to sit on a jury? This is a possibility for someone who is self employed or someone who's employer won't pay their wages.

Long trials aren't unheard of either. One of my colleagues was off on jury service for 6 weeks.

Personally I'd go but I work for a company who would continue to pay my salary. In fact I think I'd actually quite enjoy it. However if I was self employed I wouldn't bother. I wouldn't affect my life just to uphold my public duty.

afly

steampowered wrote: »

I think this is a very selfish attitude. Jury service is important. It is a pretty small part of living in a modern society which respects the rule of law.

I'm don't find myself in the privileged situation of having full pay whilst serving. Keeping a roof over my families head would rank as a higher priority than any sense of duty sorry.

Undervalued wrote: »

No, as soon as you go down that route you are immediately restricting jurors to certain sections of society and probably a disproportionate amount of older people.

If you have people with a particular knowledge for certain trials then you are losing the concept of being tried by your peers.

Yes, but forcing people to serve against their will isn't exactly ideal either. All you need is a majority of them on a jury and they are looking for the quickest way to bring the case to an end, not justice.

Undervalued

afly wrote: »

Yes, but forcing people to serve against their will isn't exactly ideal either. All you need is a majority of them on a jury and they are looking for the quickest way to bring the case to an end, not justice.

Well it would actually need all of them (or after a couple of days deliberation with the judge's permission at least 10 out of 12) to do that.

However I agree it is a possibility. There is no real ideal situation but you have only got to read this thread to find a woeful lack of duty!

steampowered

Gavin83 wrote: »

Ok I'll ask the both of you this. How much would you be willing to lose before you decided the money was more important and you wouldn't attend? Would you be willing to lose your house and your job to sit on a jury? This is a possibility for someone who is self employed or someone who's employer won't pay their wages.

Good question.

For employed people, employers are legally required to give time off to attend jury service. Employers know this.

For self-employed people, you can claim £64.95 a day for short trials, up to £228.06 a day for very long trials, plus expenses.

I doubt there are many self-employed people earning more than £64.95 per day, who would lose their house if they lost the difference between that and what they are actually earning for a few weeks. If their financial position is that bad they are pretty much bankrupt anyway.

If someone would genuinely be put into serious financial difficulty as a result of jury service, fine, they can apply for an exemption - not just fail to turn up.

bugslet

I have always worried actually about being called for Jury service on account of the fact that I fall asleep at the drop of a hat - seriously.

I've fallen asleep four rows from the front of the musical Chicago, was once guest of honour at a business thank you thing and fell asleep on the front row. It's nothing to do with getting enough sleep, just sometimes I doze off, especially when it's just talking.

That's genuine BTW, not some sort of effort to duck - always wondered how I'd tackle it if I was called up.