Jury member jailed for going on holiday during trial

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Omah

Blimey ..... I sat on FOUR juries and the composition of each was totally different ..... and there were no peers, but we had a rather well-spoken Jewish jewellers wife who looked like Joan Collins on one jury .....

I misunderstood you soz, haha what you like?..
Talking of peers can you imagine 'lord' sugar on a jury?....Your fired!..er, I mean guilty...lol

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Well it came across as patronising to me, but if it wasn't intended that way, then fair enough and I apologise.



But the point I'm trying to make is, you used my age as a grounds for which to argue your point, saying that because I am younger, and have as such less 'knowledge' of such a subject, I'm perhaps in no place to comment. Now this is all well and good, but my point is - there are people who are forty years older than me, with plenty of 'knowledge', as you call it, on this subject who hold the same opinions as me. So what I'm saying is, how can you possibly use my age to defend your point, if my point is held by many with again 'more knowledge' of the subject than me? Quite clearly having more knowledge of such a subject doesn't mean that your opinion of it is going to change, as you are making out...which is my point.

Jack - my apologies. I didn't notice your reply here. sorry.

I do understand why you thought I may have been patronising -it's one of those explanations that is very difficult to articulate without it coming over that way.

I wasn't defaming your age as such - but I couldn't (and cannot) address the point I was trying to make without bringing into play the 'level/grade' of education you are at currently - and the difference that another 5/10 years of further indepth study will make to you. The best way I can put it over is: often when we are learning something new: the fire in our belly, the thoughts we have, the ideas that we are learning seem so obvious: they seem so easy to manage - in theory. It isn't until practical application is required, that you (ie: people) realise how many external and 'unaccounted for' variables affect the theoretical approach - which were never considered previously - that you (ie: people) are able to recognise that 'what may have seemed an easy solution' in theory - doesn't work in practise.

Hope that helps clear it up a bit. That's what I also was referring to re: 'having experience'... being experienced doesn't mean it is effective.

(ie: to try to explain what I mean.... how many 'experienced doctors' for example have been done for gross misconduct with ongoing errors, time and time again...... they were experienced, they may have had knowledge: but implimenting both of those things in the real world, failed because 'they' (the individual) was inept)

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Isn't that the very point of healthy debate? To discredit the 'opponents' arguement, to persuade others to accept your point of view based upon the arguments & points being made?

Its not enough though to simply discredit those who have opposing views, Backing up what you say with reliably sourced facts and statistics helps.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Silly woman.

I do agree that Jury Duty shouldn't be compulsory though, why put someone's future in the hands of a person so irresponsible?

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Compulsory Jury Duty is a flawed concept and is one of the reasons why our law system has it's failings. While a juror's uninterest can be seen as a plus as it means they aren't going to take things as seriously either, someone who doesn't want to be there will just go with whatever gets them out of it quicker rather then actually taking in the facts of a case and making an educated decision and to put the fate of someone in the hands of someone so disinterested is reckless and foolish.

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I tend to focus on the arguments at hand. I can rely on my own argument to get things done.

So your argument is :

a) Compulsory Jury Duty is a flawed concept and is one of the reasons why our law system has it's failings.

Well, that appears to be a massive unsubstantiated generalisation.

b) While a juror's uninterest can be seen as a plus as it means they aren't going to take things as seriously either, someone who doesn't want to be there will just go with whatever gets them out of it quicker rather then actually taking in the facts of a case and making an educated decision and to put the fate of someone in the hands of someone so disinterested is reckless and foolish.

At best, hypothesis; at worst, naive postulation.

[Dezzy]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Isn't that the very point of healthy debate? To discredit the 'opponents' arguement, to persuade others to accept your point of view based upon the arguments & points being made?

Yeah by countering their argument, Omah has just been focusing on me and ignoring my arguments which is always a sign of defeat. I've put up some points which he has chosen to ignore in favour of bleating about his experience without actually detailing anything useful of the process...

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Yeah by countering their argument, Omah has just been focusing on me and ignoring my arguments which is always a sign of defeat. I've put up some points which he has chosen to ignore in favour of bleating about his experience without actually detailing anything useful of the process...

As you did his and did so by having to resort to being verbally abusive which bring nothing to the forum (as in debating forum, not Tibb I mean).

However, I see Omah has indeed responded: so let's all (note: not you, not me, not a.n.other - ALL of us !! ) maybe keep a cool head - well .... cool - ish.

[Dezzy]

Originally Posted by Omah

So your argument is :

a) Compulsory Jury Duty is a flawed concept and is one of the reasons why our law system has it's failings.

Well, that appears to be a massive unsubstantiated generalisation.

b) While a juror's uninterest can be seen as a plus as it means they aren't going to take things as seriously either, someone who doesn't want to be there will just go with whatever gets them out of it quicker rather then actually taking in the facts of a case and making an educated decision and to put the fate of someone in the hands of someone so disinterested is reckless and foolish.

At best, hypothesis; at worst, naive postulation.

Well it is a flawed concept because it isn't perfect either so it has to be flawed. By making it compulsory they run the risk of tainting a jury with someone who doesn't take it as seriously as it should be taken. I've known a lot of people who have done it and have not given it the respect or effort it requires. Why risk the public's safety or someone's fate by including people who don't want to be there?

Make it optional and there's a better chance of getting juries who recognise the gravity and responsibility of the role instead of ones that are just going to wing it.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by kizzy

I misunderstood you soz, haha what you like?..
Talking of peers can you imagine 'lord' sugar on a jury?....Your fired!..er, I mean guilty...lol

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Well it is a flawed concept because it isn't perfect either so it has to be flawed. By making it compulsory they run the risk of tainting a jury with someone who doesn't take it as seriously as it should be taken. I've known a lot of people who have done it and have not given it the respect or effort it requires. Why risk the public's safety or someone's fate by including people who don't want to be there?

Make it optional and there's a better chance of getting juries who recognise the gravity and responsibility of the role instead of ones that are just going to wing it.

Fair points. very few things in life are perfect but we have to take all mitigating factors into account before reaching a conclusion on such an important issues - such as "Who should have to do Jury Duty"

If you make it optional however: you have to consider that there will be those who want more liberal sentencing, vs those who harsher sentencing.

Those who do not work and volunteer just to give themselves something to do.

Those who have a personal agenda rather than a lawful unbiased reason.

Those who have felt the justice system let them down (or not) and have a personal reasons / premeditated reasons for wanting to be on a jury.

Those who simply get some sick kick of being part of having some 'power' to sentence someone.

How do you suggest this is controlled / regulated / monitored / avoided?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Fair points. very few things in life are perfect but we have to take all mitigating factors into account before reaching a conclusion on such an important issues - such as "Who should have to do Jury Duty"

If you make it optional however: you have to consider that there will be those who want more liberal sentencing, vs those who harsher sentencing.

Those who do not work and volunteer just to give themselves something to do.

Those who have a personal agenda rather than a lawful unbiased reason.

Those who have felt the justice system let them down (or not) and have a personal reasons / premeditated reasons for wanting to be on a jury.

Those who simply get some sick kick of being part of having some 'power' to sentence someone.

How do you suggest this is controlled / regulated / monitored / avoided?

Great points here, the random selection means that you are less likely to have a dogmatic jury which it what would happen if the selection process was from volunteer jurors.

[Dezzy]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Fair points. very few things in life are perfect but we have to take all mitigating factors into account before reaching a conclusion on such an important issues - such as "Who should have to do Jury Duty"

If you make it optional however: you have to consider that there will be those who want more liberal sentencing, vs those who harsher sentencing.

Those who do not work and volunteer just to give themselves something to do.

Those who have a personal agenda rather than a lawful unbiased reason.

Those who have felt the justice system let them down (or not) and have a personal reasons rather than premeditated reasons for wanting to be on a jury.

Those who simply get some sick kick of being part of having some 'power' to sentence someone.

How do you suggest this is controlled / regulated / monitored / avoided?

If it was optional I'd offer a small incentive for taking part in order to get people to go for it and then put a sorting procedure in place to get rid of anyone with a ciminal record, biases or alliegances and other things that can taint a trial. While things like that are already taken into consideration now I think by eliminating the compulsory aspect of things you'd have a better chance of getting a more serious jury since they would be there by their own choice.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

If it was optional I'd offer a small incentive for taking part in order to get people to go for it and then put a sorting procedure in place to get rid of anyone with a ciminal record, biases or alliegances and other things that can taint a trial. While things like that are already taken into consideration now I think by eliminating the compulsory aspect of things you'd have a better chance of getting a more serious jury since they would be there by their own choice.

What sort of incentive would you offer?

How do you feel that would improve upon the current status?

Why do you think that currently, some people are 'not selected' - they are called up for jury duty but are not selected and sent home? Are you aware that happens because by what you have offered as a suggestion -it seems that you don't know this already DOES happen. A 'filtering' of potential jurors - already happens. That already is in place.

Given that that already is in place (which now you may understand why it was important for you to reply to Omah as to whether you had had any been called, or being in a court, been a witness etc). It's not that 'we' are trying to be smart - it's because what you seem to think doesn't happen... does already happen.

so back to my original questions then,now that you are aware of this.

[08marsh]

Giving them incentives? Do you mean like money?

Because wouldn't you then face similar problems. People only doing it to make a quick £50 or whatever and not taking the trial seriously and being uninterested.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Well it is a flawed concept because it isn't perfect either so it has to be flawed.

The concept IS perfect - a man may be judged only by his equals, i.e. the judge has no say in the matter - he may only direct the jury on points of law and the thrust of the adverarial arguments presented

By making it compulsory they run the risk of tainting a jury with someone who doesn't take it as seriously as it should be taken. I've known a lot of people who have done it and have not given it the respect or effort it requires. Why risk the public's safety or someone's fate by including people who don't want to be there?

Make it optional and there's a better chance of getting juries who recognise the gravity and responsibility of the role instead of ones that are just going to wing it.

Now here's the rub - PEOPLE aren't perfect, so the implementation is flawed - but that's the point of jury selection, i.e. random, unpredictable and disposable - once jury members are permanent and "professional", they will become as cynical and self-serving as the solicitors and QC's representing their "clients" and as open to financial manipulation as paid witnesses

Bearing in mind some of the cases that have to be discussed, which may include evidence of violent and vicious personal attacks (such as a body cut up by a chain-saw, which was part of the murder case I sat on), anyone who volunteers to take part in such cases must have an ulterior motive

The only case for non-jury or "professional" jury court proceeding is, IMO, fraud, where the body and nature of the evidence is more than mere mortals can deal with (again, as I found out - luckily, in "our" case, the defendant eventually changed his plea before the case had progessed too far)

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Fair points. very few things in life are perfect but we have to take all mitigating factors into account before reaching a conclusion on such an important issues - such as "Who should have to do Jury Duty"

If you make it optional however: you have to consider that there will be those who want more liberal sentencing, vs those who harsher sentencing.

Those who do not work and volunteer just to give themselves something to do.

Those who have a personal agenda rather than a lawful unbiased reason.

Those who have felt the justice system let them down (or not) and have a personal reasons / premeditated reasons for wanting to be on a jury.

Those who simply get some sick kick of being part of having some 'power' to sentence someone.

How do you suggest this is controlled / regulated / monitored / avoided?

Exactly .....

[Omah]

Originally Posted by kizzy

Great points here, the random selection means that you are less likely to have a dogmatic jury which it what would happen if the selection process was from volunteer jurors.

Very true .....

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

If it was optional I'd offer a small incentive for taking part in order to get people to go for it and then put a sorting procedure in place to get rid of anyone with a ciminal record, biases or alliegances and other things that can taint a trial. While things like that are already taken into consideration now I think by eliminating the compulsory aspect of things you'd have a better chance of getting a more serious jury since they would be there by their own choice.

So they would be there for the money and, possibly, ulterior motives.

[Kizzy]

Can you imagine a jury full of daily mail readers?....

[08marsh]

[MTVN]

Poor Michael Vick

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Poor Michael Vick

[waterhog]

the dury is out lol