Jury duty


I agree in principal.

Only question is, … would you like you to be on your Jury??

If the answer is no, you’re probably doing the right thing to avoid it.


So if you can afford a better lawyer they can convince the average Joe one way or another? I wouldn’t trust a stranger to look after my dog for 5 minutes let alone decide who is guilty of what. I was 19 when i got called up (and didn’t go). I wasn’t even mature enough to realise the responsibility i had. But sure let me decide on somebodies future.


That’s why it’s not one person deciding but a group of people


I get your point but i still disagree. I’m not overly optimistic when it comes to the general public. I know that makes me a jerk.


Great point. I would definitely not want me to be on my jury. And also not most of the people i know.


I’d prefer my jury not to know me personally, too.


A better lawyer will help whatever the situation.

In a jury, you are one of twelve and, from my experience, the conversations that occur help the group reach a consensus. if you’re unsure of something, you can ask for extra guidance from the judge (on points of law).

I’m very happy with how I carried out my duty when I was called…the first time I was 24, the second time, mid 40s.


Fortunately I am not eligible for jury duty.


Yeah, that age-cut off thing.
Oh well.


Like you my friend, I was not always the polite, shrinking violet that I am these days.



One of the problems with juries is that many people don’t understand what’s being put to them. I’ve seen several people completely misinterpret the meaning of DNA related results and just fill in the gaps with their own bias e.g. “inconclusive” to some people means it doesn’t establish that he didn’t do it. Despite the fact that people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty there were jurors starting from a position of guilt expecting others to prove the defendant innocent. Not supposed to discriminate, no problems, “but he’s a muslim and he has a facial tick” he looks like he did it. One person didn’t want any confrontation so went along with the consensus. It’s a pretty flawed process.


That’s the same whether it’s a judge or a jury.


In the same way that democracy is a flawed process.


Yes, but don’t you think a judge is maybe a little more educated and experienced in these situations?


Decks sharing his criminal record stories again? :joy:

BTW, Decks, there’s nothing in the dossier, so may need an update via PM. Cheers.



I’m in favour of the jury system. Japan introduced a lay judge system a number of years ago. While a few lay judges may expedite the decision making process (compared with a larger number of jurors), they face the same criticisms of incompetence (not understanding points of law, being emotionally swayed by the skills of the lawyers, individual character traits, etc). Allowing one person, a judge, regardless of his/her sophistication to make a unilateral judgement doesn’t sit well with me. The jury system may have its flaws, but it is the best/fairest option for mine. Improved juror training pre-trial may have some merit, but cost/availability issues might be prohibitive.


Could you not send a link to a ten minute online training site with the letter?


I have been on jury service many times and see it as an important part of your civic duty and also a great opportunity to put some sleazebag away for life; if guilty of course.

After the trial you are free to talk about anything that happened or was said in the court, except where the judge has specifically directed the jury to stay silent, like the identity of a rape victim. You are not supposed to discuss what was said in the jury room or disclose the identity of other jurors, as there may be an appeal and this could prejudice any future case.