View Full Version : Jury Duty
grandmaster
19-07-2005, 14:28
Ok got a summons through the post last night,
**** myself mind you as i turned over the brown menacing envelope and the word court jumped out at me :Yikes:
Anyway
I was wondering, whats the crack with my earnings?
I earn way more than what the allowences (sp?) sheet says i can get, does this mean i have to take a drop in wage to process the outcome of a potential scumbags prison sentence?
If so then i dont want to do it,
Any one else done this service to the country?????
Graham M
19-07-2005, 14:33
Some companies will still pay you for Jury duty, ask yours
Ok got a summons through the post last night,
**** myself mind you as i turned over the brown menacing envelope and the word court jumped out at me :Yikes:
Anyway
I was wondering, whats the crack with my earnings?
I earn way more than what the allowences (sp?) sheet says i can get, does this mean i have to take a drop in wage to process the outcome of a potential scumbags prison sentence?
Your employer should continue to pay you as normal during the period of duty, ask your HR department for confirmation.
If so then i dont want to do it,
Unless you have a supporting document from your doctor as to why you can't go then it is mandatory, in fact it's an offence not to go.
You can claim back your loss of earnings
http://www.cjsonline.gov.uk/juror/expenses/index.html
orangebird
19-07-2005, 14:34
Ok got a summons through the post last night,
**** myself mind you as i turned over the brown menacing envelope and the word court jumped out at me :Yikes:
Anyway
I was wondering, whats the crack with my earnings?
I earn way more than what the allowences (sp?) sheet says i can get, does this mean i have to take a drop in wage to process the outcome of a potential scumbags prison sentence?
If so then i dont want to do it,
Any one else done this service to the country?????
Your employers should have apolicy regarding this. ntl do - You should claim from the court the maximum amount to which you are entitled in respect of the loss of earnings allowance. This allowance will be deducted from your salary in order that you receive your normal pay during any period of jury service.
darkangel
19-07-2005, 14:36
Ok got a summons through the post last night,
**** myself mind you as i turned over the brown menacing envelope and the word court jumped out at me :Yikes:
Anyway
I was wondering, whats the crack with my earnings?
I earn way more than what the allowences (sp?) sheet says i can get, does this mean i have to take a drop in wage to process the outcome of a potential scumbags prison sentence?
If so then i dont want to do it,
Any one else done this service to the country????? u need ur employer fill in a certificate of loss of earnings i belive it's called u'll need this from day 1 u should also get travel and meal allowance unforutnatly jury duty isn't something u can just refuse to do
edit:-damm u lot r quick :D
grandmaster
19-07-2005, 14:36
See thats what i love about this place... The very quick replies..
Thank you all,
Off to whinge at the payroll.
Lets hope its non of you that i meet in the court room
:angel:
Graham M
19-07-2005, 14:39
See thats what i love about this place... The very quick replies..
Thank you all,
Off to whinge at the payroll.
Lets hope its non of you that i meet in the court room
:angel:
When was the court date again? ;):rofl:
zoombini
19-07-2005, 14:39
However....
An ex colleague of mine once got a summons for this.
He was the key engineer on a high profile job that just had to be completed by a set date, so he got the MD to write a letter to the courts asking for him to be excused otherwise it would mean a huge financial loss to the company.
He didn't have to do it & went on holiday instead. :)
You never know it you might enjoy it :)
http://bestsmileys.com/cops/2.gif
MovedGoalPosts
19-07-2005, 14:46
You may be able to get excused service once, if you can show that it would be particularly inconvenient. Each case will be taken on it's merits. However if you have been excused service, you are probably just putting off the inevitable as your name is likely to get bakc on the list quite soon.
I did jury service many many years ago. They soon told me I was not required, when they saw I'd be claiming the full expenses. Costs are everything these days, so take plenty of evidence with you.
Also take a good book or two. Court is so wasteful of time, there can be a lot of sitting around waiting for nothing to happen.
I wouldn't mind being called for duty - I think it would be an interesting experience to see the law in action at the sharp end. Having said that, a few of the people I know have been said there is a lot of sitting on your backside waiting to be assigned a case. I think the advice is to take a good book.
__________________
I see Rob agrees about the book!
grandmaster
19-07-2005, 15:13
Spoke to payroll,
They deduct the court allowence (sp?) from my wage then i claim that money back..
So no losses,
Should i ask if the accused is a cable forum member and a such is a person of impeccable taste?
yeah ok maybe not
So when do you have to go GM?
grandmaster
19-07-2005, 15:27
Call me Ryan :D
Erm i think it is September, although i'm not fully sure..
I'll have to fill in all the forms tonight (I wanted to do it at work but i have computers crashing all over the place and i'm on my own ..TYPICAL )
Ok Ryan call me Julie, Jules, it, oy you (you get the idea lol)
I know you can't talk about it when it is happening but I hope you will give us all a full report about the case after you get back :D
grandmaster
19-07-2005, 15:33
ok will do!!
zoombini
19-07-2005, 16:00
Take a good book.
I'm sure it must get very boring sometimes (the times when you not supposed to be paing attention that is).
Take a good book.
I'm sure it must get very boring sometimes (the times when you not supposed to be paing attention that is).
Yep, a very long, good book - just don't let the judge see you reading it. ;)
Actually I got assigned to two cases in my fortnight, both started on Monday mornings. IIRC there was only one spell of legal argument that we had to sit out, which lasted a couple of hours. But pity the poor people who we were trying - both cases related to incidents that had happened 12 MONTHS before. Talk about slow.
Some of us never get called for jury service.I'm still waiting at 52 for my turn...my husband also has never done it.Whereas my mother got called twice.
I have been called twice in the past but sent doctors notes in and didn't have to attend
I have been called twice in the past but sent doctors notes in and didn't have to attend
I have done it once and found it enjoyable :D
Are you still talking about jury service https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2005/07/11.gif
Are you still talking about jury service https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2005/07/11.gif
:LOL:
grandmaster
19-07-2005, 19:42
Maybe i could paint eyeballs on my eyelids then go to sleep..
Well watch out criminals of Manchester and surounding areas the Grand master is in session :D :D :D :D :D
Make sure you don't sit nearest the Judge at the front (unless you want to be foreperson).
Quite an interesting experience and surprising how many times you get sent out (whilst legal detail is checked). I had a 3 week case but you may only get a few days. Definitely take a book and a pack of cards.
grandmaster
19-07-2005, 19:57
Make sure you don't sit nearest the Judge at the front (unless you want to be foreperson).
Quite an interesting experience and surprising how many times you get sent out (whilst legal detail is checked). I had a 3 week case but you may only get a few days. Definitely take a book and a pack of cards.
Do you think they would let me have a gameboy?
Obviously not in the court room :D :D
Do you think they would let me have a gameboy?
Obviously not in the court room :D :D
I don't think they would mind (outside the CR) but I chatted to the rest of the jurors (who you are never likely to see again).
BTW on the first day you may be there with loads of other potential jurors and you will only find out about your case/s at the last moment. Thats the most tedious part.
grandmaster
19-07-2005, 20:21
So in theory i could be sent home without doing anything???????
grandmaster
19-07-2005, 20:33
Yes it often happens :)
i can see this getting to be a pain then as i get bored quite easy
zoombini
20-07-2005, 08:45
I wouldn't mind doing it, just for the experience.
fireman328
20-07-2005, 09:00
Some of us never get called for jury service.I'm still waiting at 52 for my turn...my husband also has never done it.Whereas my mother got called twice.
Me too ! (except my mother of course)
How did it go Ryan (AKA Grandmaster)?
Hubby has just been called up for December (worst part is he starts holiday from work that day but we are not away) :fit:
How did it go Ryan (AKA Grandmaster)?
Hubby has just been called up for December (worst part is he starts holiday from work that day but we are not away) :fit:
Cancel the holiday time at work. Your hubby is not obliged to take holiday time to do jury duty, and your employer can get costs back from the State to cover his absence. I bet they would do this even if he were away on hols, so he should definitely not allow them to 'steal' a couple of weeks.
Of course you can always tell the court you have booked leave from work that week and 'have other plans' - it's nigh on impossible to get an exemption these days but they should give a deferrment. I got one when they tried to call me up in mid-August (I was going away on holiday) and they deferred me for IIRC about three months, no questions asked.
sir_drinks_alot
25-10-2005, 14:53
I always feel sorry for the people who have to do Jury Duty for the big trials Where the nation expects a conviction. the axe always falls on here head it
There isn’t the expected result poor sods.
I always feel sorry for the people who have to do Jury Duty for the big trials Where the nation expects a conviction. the axe always falls on here head it
There isnââ‚ ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t the expected result poor sods.
Does it? If a jury finds someone innocent, it's because the prosecution hasn't given enough proof / evidence that the defendant is guilty. Surely that means that the prosecution are seen as being 'at fault', as the jury can only really act on information that they've been given.
Unless you have a supporting document from your doctor as to why you can't go then it is mandatory, in fact it's an offence not to go.
My mother got out of it because she knew the judge :) Mind you, a friend of hers wasn't so lucky and had a rape trial that she found extremely traumatic. I felt quite sorry for her.
I'll probably never have to go.
Having a criminal record has its advantages. :D
I'll probably never have to go.
Having a criminal record has its advantages. :D
:rofl::D
;) A good way to get out of it is to claim you are prejudiced (even if you are not).
Against everything, I guess.
Having a criminal record has its advantages.
I don't think having a copy of 'Agadoo' by Black Lace would get you out of it, somehow.
testcard
25-10-2005, 22:20
Right to a fair trial.
Upholding of the common good.
Contribution to society.
Jury Service is an important civic service that helps everyone.
;) A good way to get out of it is to claim you are prejudiced (even if you are not).
Against everything, I guess.
my mum has been called up two times , both times she read about 4 books , and never whent on a jury ,but had to stay there all day .if she was needed any where .
One thing I remember from when my dad was called - he went smartly dressed in suit and tie, and then every grubby little oik's brief rejected him immediately.
On the other hand, if you look a bit dodgy, then the prosecution are more likely to reject you.
So an Armani suit with a hoodie should get both sides rejecting you then?
Right to a fair trial.
Upholding of the common good.
Contribution to society.
and occasionally making the Government look stupid:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1539893,00.html
My wife got called a few years ago, I sent a letter in to point out she had two small children to look after and they excused her (for 10 years I think).
Unless you have a supporting document from your doctor as to why you can't go then it is mandatory, in fact it's an offence not to go.
See, its things like that, that make me think we live in a facist authoritarian opressive state, rather than the usual remarks.
How someone can be forced against their will, to do something so important like to pass judgement on a defendant is beyond me.
Two weeks off work, travel expenses, lunch paid for, free sandwiches, and able to see how the justice system works, it didn't seem too opressive to me.
garyparson
26-10-2005, 04:21
I thought it was great. I'd do it again tomorrow. You have to be a foreman at least once for the full experiance haha.. The only down side is that you get some right idiots in there with you who can't make their mind up on matters. I never spent more than an hour sitting waiting to be on the next jury! It became a joke with the guys I was talking to that I'd be up when the next one became available. This was in Liverpool. All good stuff.
I thought it was great. I'd do it again tomorrow. You have to be a foreman at least once for the full experiance haha.. The only down side is that you get some right idiots in there with you who can't make their mind up on matters. I never spent more than an hour sitting waiting to be on the next jury! It became a joke with the guys I was talking to that I'd be up when the next one became available. This was in Liverpool. All good stuff.
Same here, I did it in the late 80's, I had 2 weeks off work all paid for, free food etc etc. We got put on a fraud case where they were making Barclycards, it lasted the whole 2 weeks.
Two weeks off work, travel expenses, lunch paid for, free sandwiches, and able to see how the justice system works, it didn't seem too opressive to me.
If its so wonderful, then why should the government have to make it a mandatory requirement that everyone called must attend? The government has no right to force people to do things like this against their will. What if you have booked a holiday, will that get you off jury duty? Do you get full wages in your absense? Or a fraction like maternity leave? As BBking said, a trial can be horribly tramatic on someone. What if the times are incovenient with family plans?
The government of a decent, civilised country has absolutely no right to coerce people under the threat of punishment, to do something like this.
SMHarman
26-10-2005, 10:34
If its so wonderful, then why should the government have to make it a mandatory requirement that everyone called must attend? The government has no right to force people to do things like this against their will. What if you have booked a holiday, will that get you off jury duty? Do you get full wages in your absense? Or a fraction like maternity leave? As BBking said, a trial can be horribly tramatic on someone. What if the times are incovenient with family plans?
Because unfortunately national pride and the consideration to do the right thing and sit on a jury is something most British (or most other nations) would try to body swerve.
If you are on holiday you can usually get the requirement to serve deferred (though not make it go away)
Making it a legal requirement also means that those who think they are too important to serve on a jury (celebs, captains of industry) can also be required to do so. It was in the news recently that Michael Jackson and Liz Taylor have both been called to serve Jury duty in the state of CA.
The government of a decent, civilised country has absolutely no right to coerce people under the threat of punishment, to do something like this.And the people of a decent, civilised country should want to serve on a jury to ensure justice is served and their country remains decent and civilised.
See, its things like that, that make me think we live in a facist authoritarian opressive state, rather than the usual remarks.
How someone can be forced against their will, to do something so important like to pass judgement on a defendant is beyond me.
I would think it is to ensure that the jury is a reasonably representative sample of the general population. Kind of makes sense to me. (Just like one of the advantages of a conscriptive army is that you don't end up with an army of trigger-happy idiots).
I would think it is to ensure that the jury is a reasonably representative sample of the general population. Kind of makes sense to me. (Just like one of the advantages of a conscriptive army is that you don't end up with an army of trigger-happy idiots).
Well, you do really - it's just that they have to train them to do it first ;)
(Just like one of the advantages of a conscriptive army is that you don't end up with an army of trigger-happy idiots).
Au contraire. One notable result of conscription is the massacre at Srebrenica. The UN soldiers who were supposed to be guarding the town were Dutch conscripts. Result? A platoon of young men, most of whom would never have gone anywhere near a military career if given the choice, who perhaps justifiably decided to put their own skins ahead of a bunch of strangers, and ran for it when the Serbs got heavy. Had the professional British army been in attendance I suspect the outcome would have been different.
Au contraire. One notable result of conscription is the massacre at Srebrenica. The UN soldiers who were supposed to be guarding the town were Dutch conscripts. Result? A platoon of young men, most of whom would never have gone anywhere near a military career if given the choice, who perhaps justifiably decided to put their own skins ahead of a bunch of strangers, and ran for it when the Serbs got heavy. Had the professional British army been in attendance I suspect the outcome would have been different.
Let's not go off-topic here, (my remark was just meant as an analogy), but I don't think what happened in Srebrenica was down to the actual soldiers on the ground. Perhaps the British army would have done better, but not because it's a professional army:
http://www.warchronicle.com/netherlands/Srebrenica.htm
Incidentally, conscription in Holland was abolished in 1997, 2 years after the Srebrenica tragedy, but I doubt that had any relevance to it.
Edit: Frankly, Chris, I am a little surprised to see such a sweeping, uninformed comment coming from you. What happened in Srebrenica was a terrible tragedy brought on by poor management from the Dutch government, and poor communication/backup with/from the UN. To suggest this was down to the actual soldiers making a run for it because they were not 'professional' is more than a little insulting to those involved.
kobuskint
26-10-2005, 13:29
If its so wonderful, then why should the government have to make it a mandatory requirement that everyone called must attend? The government has no right to force people to do things like this against their will. What if you have booked a holiday, will that get you off jury duty? Do you get full wages in your absense? Or a fraction like maternity leave? As BBking said, a trial can be horribly tramatic on someone. What if the times are incovenient with family plans?
The government of a decent, civilised country has absolutely no right to coerce people under the threat of punishment, to do something like this.
It is called civic duty. You cannot force people to vote, but unless you have an available body of citizens, who can judge their peers, then you will have state controlled and lead justice, or police state.
The abdication of duty, while still (above) demanding rights for the citizen is one of the reasons that (IMHO) we have our social malaise. Endless rights are demanded (financial support, education, health, human rights) but few will put their necks on the line (or even Punky's this case two weeks paid civic service!!).
If something is given free, then it is seldom valued. If we lose jury justice, as is starting to happen, we will never ever get it back. Then two weeks will seem a very cheap price.
Am I cross about Punky's comment? Yes, a bit.
grandmaster
26-10-2005, 13:47
How did it go Ryan (AKA Grandmaster)?
Hubby has just been called up for December (worst part is he starts holiday from work that day but we are not away) :fit:
Sorry i forgot i started this thread lol,
I turned up and did my duty to the country and its criminals.
THERE IS A LOT OF WAITING AROUND!!!
I read the da vici code cover to cover and also the long way round with ewan and charlie.....
Got called up on one case and boy was he guilty!!!
Overall i'm glad i did it although it was a bit of a pain.
I was really! pleased with the guilty verdict when the judge read out the other crimes this person had commited it was a list as long as your arm and probably as long as something else.....
Also i did not lose any money but just make sure you tick the box that says that you are unable to return the work on a half day!
The court lunch time is 13:00 and you could be told as late as 12:45 that you are not required for the rest of the day, for me it would have been a ball ache to get home on the train (oldham) and get my car to drive to Bolton where i work as i finish at 5..
My advice:
Take a book or two
Make sure you tick that you cannot return to work on a half day
My advice:
Take a book or two
Make sure you tick that you cannot return to work on a half day
Make sure you spend your whole food allowance, you can't take it with you when you leave!
Scout out the surrounding side streets before your fortnight if you plan to drive to court, they can be funny about paying expenses for car parks.
Being Foreman and getting to say 'guilty' is a real power trip. :erm: :D
grandmaster
26-10-2005, 13:58
Make sure you spend your whole food allowance, you can't take it with you when you leave!
<snip>
Was not difficult in Manchester, the food was very expensive and i'm sorry to say not very good.
£1 odd for a cup off coffee, main meal was £3.95.. ...
Maybe we should have a jury duty tips post lol
Well my husband has to go to court on the 11th of November because the scrotes who beat him and his mates up in April have elected to plead not guilty in front of a jury despite admitting the crime at the time.There are plenty of upstanding witness's against them,the CPS reckon they have a case against them but they still want to have trial by jury.Their right I know but such a waste of time and money as it's not just the jury who get paid expenses for losing time off work.My husband will be recompensed as well. :erm:
Well my husband has to go to court on the 11th of November because the scrotes who beat him and his mates up in April have elected to plead not guilty in front of a jury despite admitting the crime at the time.There are plenty of upstanding witness's against them,the CPS reckon they have a case against them but they still want to have trial by jury.Their right I know but such a waste of time and money as it's not just the jury who get paid expenses for losing time off work.My husband will be recompensed as well. :erm:
Statistically, you're more likely to get off if you face a jury rather than magistrates. Most people, when charged with an offence that can be tried either by magistrates or the crown court, would be advised by their counsel to go for Crown court if they intend to plead not guilty.
Of course, the gamble for the scrotes is that, on conviction, the Crown court can impose stiffer sentences that magistrates can.
Statistically, you're more likely to get off if you face a jury rather than magistrates. Most people, when charged with an offence that can be tried either by magistrates or the crown court, would be advised by their counsel to go for Crown court if they intend to plead not guilty.
Of course, the gamble for the scrotes is that, on conviction, the Crown court can impose stiffer sentences that magistrates can.
Well we will see.Won't recompense us for my husband's broken glasses though. :mad:
It is called civic duty. You cannot force people to vote, but unless you have an available body of citizens, who can judge their peers, then you will have state controlled and lead justice, or police state.
The abdication of duty, while still (above) demanding rights for the citizen is one of the reasons that (IMHO) we have our social malaise. Endless rights are demanded (financial support, education, health, human rights) but few will put their necks on the line (or even Punky's this case two weeks paid civic service!!).
If something is given free, then it is seldom valued. If we lose jury justice, as is starting to happen, we will never ever get it back. Then two weeks will seem a very cheap price.
Am I cross about Punky's comment? Yes, a bit.
Well I am sorry you feel that way, but that is my opinion. If I was summoned for Jury Service, I might even want to do it myself, circumstances permitting but I think it is thorough abuse of government privledge, to force me to do it against my will. This is supposed to be a free country. Interesting how you drew comparisons with the police state analogy. What sounds more like an oppressive government, one which forces people to do what they require of them against their will? Or one that gives people the option? Voting is a civic duty too, and an important one, but thankfully, unlike Australia, you aren't forced to vote under threat of prison. The idea that the government coercing its citizens with an acceptable reason is why we don't have a draft.
Losing Jury Service? Give over. Out of 30m eligible adults, you can't find 12 people local to the court as a representative sample? Most people will want to do it, and will enjoy it, but note I said most, not all. If 5%, 2%, 1% don't want to do it? There are more than enough people out there willing to do it, without having to coerce citizens to do it under threat of fine or prison.
I am sorry, but when the government forces me to do something against my will, the very thought of it even, tends to make me a bit cross as well.
kobuskint
26-10-2005, 16:44
Not lose jury SERVICE, lose jury justice. More cases are planned to be heard without a jury. There are arguements with regard to high tech or high finance, but it still contend that you enjoy the benefits of being a citizen, then you pay the price of being a citizen.
Demanding that it is a free country does not mean that it is free of duty, just free from oppression. Being asked to do your duty is not oppression, refusing is just laziness.
An opporessive government sounds like one where justice is unfair, where free speech is quashed, where rights are taken away and there is no tolerance. Not where you cannot be bothered and therefore claim that it is so unfair.
Accept that right come with responsibility, do your duty and accept it. A good book is Starship Troopers (not so much the film). It deals with these issues in an extreme but interesting light.
Flubflow
26-10-2005, 17:09
What about the self-employed. There is very little official info about small sole traders who, without any employees to answer the phone and keep the business going in your absence, would find jury service simply impossible to do. Hell, I've not even had a holiday since 1987 so I don't know how the hell I'd be expected to do jury service. They wouldn't compensate me if I lost a big job due to being stuck in a court and even getting the hourly rate that you quote to your customers seems to be extremely difficult. OK, so I don't get my full hourly rate 8 hours a day 5 days a week most of the time anyway but thats not the point. If they want me then they should pay my rate.
What if you have booked a holiday, will that get you off jury duty?
If you have a reasonable reason then you can "get off", for instance I got a Jury Duty summons last year but I pointed out that because I ran my own business and there was nobody else to replace me, so I was excused.
The government of a decent, civilised country has absolutely no right to coerce people under the threat of punishment, to do something like this.
As we have discussed many a time before on here, with Rights come Responsibilites.
If you want the right to a fair trial, to put your case before a jury of your peers instead of a State appointed official etc then you must accept that you have the *responsibility* to participate in the process instead of saying "I can't be bothered, let someone else deal with it".
To use expressions like "coerce", under threat of punishment", "no right", simply misrepresents the situation.
As we have discussed many a time before on here, with Rights come Responsibilites.
If you want the right to a fair trial, to put your case before a jury of your peers instead of a State appointed official etc then you must accept that you have the *responsibility* to participate in the process instead of saying "I can't be bothered, let someone else deal with it".
Oh good, i'll remember that the next time you tell us you won't be voting at the next election ;)
To use expressions like "coerce", under threat of punishment", "no right", simply misrepresents the situation.
Sorry, being forced against my will to do something is being coerced. If you don't attend when summoned, you are eligible for a punishment. I am not misrepresenting the situation. You are, however, when you simply dismiss everyone who doesn't want to be involved on that particular occaison as "can't be bothered".
Funny you mention rights, surely people should have a right not to attend jury duty?
You make it sound like the system out will fall flat on its face. You're seriously telling me that you can't find the needed 450,000/year out of 30m potential applicants? If so, it shows you what jury service is really like.
If you don't attend when summoned, you are eligible for a punishment
If you don't pay your taxes or MOT your car or ensure it's roadworthy or insure it you're liable to punishment too. There are legitimate ways of getting out of jury service which have been gone into in this thread, but, like the above examples, the primary way the system works *must* be based around people understanding their responsibilities and duties. Or do you think getting your car MOT'd is an unreasonable coercion? Not attending jury service because you don't agree with it being a duty on you rather puts you outside society.
Or do you think getting your car MOT'd is an unreasonable coercion?
Not really, because owning a car is an option. Taxes aren't I suppose, but then again taxes are a necessity. Are you seriously trying to tell me you can't find 450,000 volunteers a year out of a 30m eligible people, making mandatory summonses a necessity? Everyone seems to love it.
I would say making attendance mandatory would be a last resort if 12 volunteers per trial can't be found, but that's not going to happen.
Not attending jury service because you don't agree with it being a duty on you rather puts you outside society.
It isn't that I don't agree with being a juror, its just that I don't agree the government should be abusing its position by forcing people to do what they don't want to do. I believe people should have rights. The right not to be part of a draft. The right not to have to attend jury duty. We have the right not to vote, and i'd say voting was more important than jury trials.
I'm going to have to give up here. When I am trying to argue people should have more rights to Graham and yourself, something's not quite right!
Trial by a jury of 12 people with only a layman's understanding, or uninterested in the procedings and not really wanting to be involved.
The fact that someone does not want to do it, sounds like a very good reason not to involve them in such a proceeding.
Maybe I'd think differently if I happened to be facing a trial, but I can't see any great merit in "trial by jury", other than as a way for criminals to have a better chance of getting off, since they only have to pull the wool over the eyes of a few people on the jury.
I have to admit, that if I was unfortunate enough to be called for this imposition, I'd jump whichever way would end it fastest, whatever I really thought, and I bet a significant number of "don't want to be there's" would do the same.
Allowing jurors to opt out...the danger there is that the process becomes self-selecting (a problem that affects the government's mad attempts to get parents to run schools - only those with the time, resources and energy to contribute will, which results in a system skewed in the favour of those with, er, time resources and energy, which is generally not those whose children will benefit most from proper education. But that's for another thread).
Presumably if you introduce voluntary jury service you'd have safeguards in place that if jurors *want* to participate, employers for instance shouldn't be allowed to threaten them with the loss of their job, and that they shouldn't lose out financially (perhaps with tax breaks to encourage employers to safeguard the job?).
The point of it essentially being the big lotto finger going 'it's you' is to keep the jury 'of your peers', rather than 'from a very small self-selecting pool', and like in genetics, the smaller the pool the weaker the result (and, of course, the pool is already fairly small since it has to be people local to the trial who are on the electoral roll and don't have a valid excuse). Need I point out what sort of society would only ever see a black* face in the dock, never on the bench or in the jury? Juries are often unrepresentative in many cases, partly due to being drawn from the electoral roll, which has well-known deficiencies in certain groups. Also, the proportion of those called who are excused is high, well over 30%.
I believe people should have rights
Including the right to a fair trial? You've admitted the taxes are a necessity. So's trial by jury. Rights infer responsibilities - the right to various protections afforded by the state comes at the price of forking out a bit of your income to protect them. The right of living under a fair judicial system sometimes asks that you donate your time to ensuring that system remains fair. You can't opt out of society, however much Mrs. Thatcher imagines it doesn't exist. Feel free to campaign democratically to end jury trial though, but I don't imagine you'll get far.
Oh, and a pre-booked holiday can get you a deferment, to answer someone earlier. It isn't quite as coercive as it looks. To be selected you have to be on the local electoral roll, so if you choose not to register to vote, you choose not to do jury duty. You could also commit a minor crime every ten years and do community service, since that excuses you. Or invent your own religion, as religious ministers are excused. Etc. Or just don't turn up, since they don't have the resources to pursue you anyway.
* 'Justice should not only be done, but be seen to be done' - I'm being simplistic with 'black' here, substitute 'poor' if you like, since they're the most likely to be pressured to opt out as they have the most to lose. Of course, in many parts of the country, black=poor, hence me putting it in. No point having a system that works in Stow-on-the-Wold but not in Brixton.
P.S. Interesting research from Kingston University - I've only skim-read it cos it's late and I'm knackered, but it looks like someone's ahead of us on this question:
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:uPPnmWo5WuoJ:www.kingston.ac.uk/~ku00596/elsres01.pdf+uk+jury+duty&hl=en
If you want the right to a fair trial, to put your case before a jury of your peers instead of a State appointed official etc then you must accept that you have the *responsibility* to participate in the process instead of saying "I can't be bothered, let someone else deal with it".
Oh good, i'll remember that the next time you tell us you won't be voting at the next election ;)
Very droll.
Except that not voting may be because I wish to say "I have no desire to participate in a system that is neither representative nor democratic".
So what would the equivalent be about refusing Jury duty...?
To use expressions like "coerce", under threat of punishment", "no right", simply misrepresents the situation.
Sorry, being forced against my will to do something is being coerced. If you don't attend when summoned, you are eligible for a punishment. I am not misrepresenting the situation. You are, however, when you simply dismiss everyone who doesn't want to be involved on that particular occaison as "can't be bothered".
Funny you mention rights, surely people should have a right not to attend jury duty?
If you had actually read and comprehended my post completely you would have noticed that I pointed out that exclusions are possible and that people *do* have a right not to attend jury duty *if* they have a good reason.
"I can't be bothered" is not a good reason.
You make it sound like the system out will fall flat on its face. You're seriously telling me that you can't find the needed 450,000/year out of 30m potential applicants? If so, it shows you what jury service is really like.
And how many of those 30 million potential applicants would, as you seem to wish to be able to do, say "bugger it, let someone else do it" if they had the opportunity?
__________________
It isn't that I don't agree with being a juror, its just that I don't agree the government should be abusing its position by forcing people to do what they don't want to do.
Shall we extend that analogy a little and see where it goes?
I don't want to get a job, why should the Government force me to get one by threatening to take away my benefits?
I don't want to pay taxes, why should the Government force me to by threatening to lock me up?
etc etc...
I believe people should have rights. The right not to be part of a draft. The right not to have to attend jury duty. We have the right not to vote, and i'd say voting was more important than jury trials.
I'm going to have to give up here. When I am trying to argue people should have more rights to Graham and yourself, something's not quite right!
When you are trying to argue for more rights *without* acknowleging that that there are commensurate *responsibilities*, then, yes, I think you should give up :)
Pø†øƒGøLÃÂ
27-10-2005, 08:51
What about the self-employed. There is very little official info about small sole traders who, without any employees to answer the phone and keep the business going in your absence, would find jury service simply impossible to do. Hell, I've not even had a holiday since 1987 so I don't know how the hell I'd be expected to do jury service. They wouldn't compensate me if I lost a big job due to being stuck in a court and even getting the hourly rate that you quote to your customers seems to be extremely difficult. OK, so I don't get my full hourly rate 8 hours a day 5 days a week most of the time anyway but thats not the point. If they want me then they should pay my rate.
My dad was excused last year because he is a sole-trader and would effectively have had to close the business to undertake jury service - and it's not just about the time away from the business but also the future business you could lose by not being available to price future jobs.
AFAIK there is already a shortage of Jurors. By the time they weed out those who for one reason and another are unable to serve they are left with quite a small number to choose from.
AFAIK there is already a shortage of Jurors. By the time they weed out those who for one reason and another are unable to serve they are left with quite a small number to choose from.
True. You can't summons the entire population every fortnight. They already have to call far more than they need because of the number of people with genuine reasons to be excused. Even when a would-be jury walks into the court, there are 15 of them, and 12 are called at random. There are three spares, so the barristers can ask for certain people to be substituted if they don't like the look of them.
If you had to factor in those people who simply don't want to do it, the system would very quickly grind to a halt.
garyparson
27-10-2005, 18:28
When I first got the letter I didn't want to do it in the slightest. Then as I said previously two weeks later I'd loved it!
Unbeliveably I got home from work today to find "a Jury summons" for me, only a month after hubby got his (now deferred to June). Second time round for me. :fit:
Should you ever be called for Jury duty, and you don't show up, you will be in good (?) company (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/02/wbush02.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/12/02/ixworld.html) :)
As I understand he was due there last Monday, but the summons didn't reach his desk...
I deferred mine as I am on a temporary contract so now I am doing a couple of weeks before hubby.
Strangest part is the number of people who say "I would love to do Jury service but have never been called". Yet here I am on my second go in less than 10 years. How on earth do they "apparently" miss so many people who seem to be willing but not asked? :shrug:
I deferred mine as I am on a temporary contract so now I am doing a couple of weeks before hubby.
Strangest part is the number of people who say "I would love to do Jury service but have never been called". Yet here I am on my second go in less than 10 years. How on earth do they "apparently" miss so many people who seem to be willing but not asked? :shrug:
Did you click the link? The person (http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/) involved seems to have a case when he says he is too busy...
Did you click the link? The person (http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/) involved seems to have a case when he says he is too busy...
Wonder if Mr Blair would do the same? :D :D
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.