Jury member jailed for going on holiday during trial

[Omah]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-17630992

A woman from Blackpool who went on holiday while sitting on a jury has been jailed for 56 days.

Janet Chapman, 52, rang Preston Crown Court to say she had back pain and could not attend for two weeks.

She said she thought that obtaining a seven-day sick note for sciatica meant she would automatically not have to attend the trial.

Recorder of Preston Judge Anthony Russell QC found her guilty of contempt of court.

The deputy care home manageress had listened to three weeks of evidence in a robbery trial at Preston Crown Court but failed to appear at the start of the final week of the scheduled four-week hearing.

She said she was unfit to attend and then on the following day, 20 March, she left a telephone message with the jury bailiff which said: "Hello, this is Janet Chapman. I won't be attending court for a period of up to two weeks. I have got to return to the doctors next Tuesday. I have got sciatica. Thank you. Bye."

It emerged she had flown out with her partner from Liverpool John Lennon Airport earlier that day for a week's holiday.

Trial judge Stuart Baker had, as normal procedure, asked all potential members of the jury before the case started whether there was any reason why they could not serve the set period of time and the defendant indicated there was none.

In explaining her absence from the proceedings, the court was told the trip had been a surprise birthday present for Chapman.

The trial was delayed for two days while inquiries were made with "genuine concern at first for your welfare", said the judge.

It resulted in "significant wasted costs, personal loss to several people and considerable inconvenience".

Chapman was discharged from the jury in her absence and the trial continued and eventually concluded.

Judge Russell said: "It is essential that the duty of jury service is taken seriously by those called upon to perform it, and that it is performed diligently and responsibly.

"You have manifestly failed to perform your public duty.

"In my judgment this is a serious contempt of court which can only be met by an immediate sentence of imprisonment."

Let that be lesson to potential jurors - it's a serious business ..... :idc:

[Pyramid*]

Quite right...she lied through her teeth. Her back pain wasn't that severe that she couldn't go on holiday.

if the holiday had been pre-planned - all she needed to do was explain that. Instead, she lied.

Good on the judge in question - more of them should follow by his example.

[Kazanne]

Mmmm,not sure about this one,you can batter an animal to death and get a fine,but get jailed for this,erm,something is wrong,imo.

[Kizzy]

Silly moo...haha

[Pyramid*]

Mmmm,not sure about this one,you can batter an animal to death and get a fine,but get jailed for this,erm,something is wrong,imo.

That is unfortunatelyy where the law is an ass ....... and yes, I agree that it is bizarre in comparison, but rules is rules and all that.

[Marc]

Ouch

[Jake.]

Idiot....

[Shaun]

Yes, how dare she not conform to an arbitrary old-fashioned demand.

[Mystic Mock]

Im sorry but I don't get why your forced to do it? she clearly didn't want to do it so get someone that wants to do it to actually do the Jury Service.

I think being punished for not wanting to be forced into doing something that you don't want to do is disgraceful and the law should be changed where that is concerned.

[Shaun]

Plus what's the point of having someone clearly unmotivated and lazy in charge of a defendant's life?

[Mystic Mock]

Plus what's the point of having someone clearly unmotivated and lazy in charge of a defendant's life?

Exactly but for some reason that's what the law wants.:joker:

[Jack_]

Forcing people into jury service is ridiculous as it is, jailing them for essentially refusing to partake is absurd. Freedom of choice and all that.

[Jords]

I think thats absolutely disgusting the poor woman!!

[arista]

"Let that be lesson to potential jurors - it's a serious business "

Bang On Right
Omah

[Omah]

Yes, how dare she not conform to an arbitrary old-fashioned demand.

Why is a call to jury service "arbitrary old-fashioned demand" ?

[Omah]

Im sorry but I don't get why your forced to do it?

You should read up on civic duty and the responsibilities of the citizen.

[Omah]

Forcing people into jury service is ridiculous as it is, jailing them for essentially refusing to partake is absurd. Freedom of choice and all that.

You should read up on civic duty and the responsibilities of the citizen.

[Omah]

I think thats absolutely disgusting the poor woman!!

Her absence cost the taxpayer tens of thousands of pounds in court and administration costs - sending her to prison is going to cost thousands more but is necessary 'pour encourager les autres'.

[Mystic Mock]

You should read up on civic duty and the responsibilities of the citizen.

I know the law, it doesn't mean I necessarily agree with it.

We are suppose to live in a country where we can do what we want within reason, not be forced to do something against our will and then be punished if we don't want to do it.

[Omah]

I know the law, it doesn't mean I necessarily agree with it.

We are suppose to live in a country where we can do what we want within reason, not be forced to do something against our will and then be punished if we don't want to do it.

You need to do more research.

[Shaun]

/you need to be more boring, jf :laugh:

[Mystic Mock]

/you need to be more boring, jf :laugh:

:joker:

[Pyramid*]

I know the law, it doesn't mean I necessarily agree with it.

We are suppose to live in a country where we can do what we want within reason, not be forced to do something against our will and then be punished if we don't want to do it.

We live in a country that we can do what we want, not within reason, but within the confines of the Laws of the Land in which we live.

I pay taxes against my will - should I just decide not to pay them and not be expected to be punished because I 'dont want to pay them' ?

[Mystic Mock]

We live in a country that we can do what we want, not within reason, but within the confines of the Laws of the Land in which we live.

I pay taxes against my will - should I just decide not to pay them and not be expected to be punished because I 'dont want to pay them' ?

Just because it's the law doesn't make it right, the woman shouldn't be forced to do Jury Service imo, and the fact that your comparing taxes to this incident is shocking as they are not the same at all, you need to pay your taxes for the welfare of this country where as going to Jury Service is not exactly gonna give more money to the country is it?

[Omah]

/you need to be more boring, jf :laugh:

:joker:

Never mind ..... :pat:

[Pyramid*]

Just because it's the law doesn't make it right, the woman shouldn't be forced to do Jury Service imo, and the fact that your comparing taxes to this incident is shocking as they are not the same at all, you need to pay your taxes for the welfare of this country where as going to Jury Service is not exactly gonna give more money to the country is it?

No it doesn't but that makes no difference. The Law is there for a purpose, whether we agree with it or not.

Much of my tax payers money is put into areas that I disagree with and is used to fund things that I do not benefit from, and never will. Why should I be expected to follow that particular Law then just because I don't want to.

It is exactly the same premise.

[Omah]

Just because it's the law doesn't make it right, the woman shouldn't be forced to do Jury Service imo, and the fact that your comparing taxes to this incident is shocking as they are not the same at all, you need to pay your taxes for the welfare of this country where as going to Jury Service is not exactly gonna give more money to the country is it?

You are displaying a shocking level of ignorance - it's a complex issue, but please do SOME research ..... :rolleyes:

[Jack_]

The Law is there for a purpose, whether we agree with it or not.

I take issue with this. How about...let's pass a law whereby if somebody irritates you, you can bludgeon them to death. Another law which allows the government to pick dodgy looking people off the street and jail them without trial under the pretense of 'protecting citizens from dodgy people'.

The law is there for a purpose, whether we agree with it or not. So let's just sit back and allow these things to happen, yes?

[Mystic Mock]

No it doesn't but that makes no difference. The Law is there for a purpose, whether we agree with it or not.

Much of my tax payers money is put into areas that I disagree with and is used to fund things that I do not benefit from, and never will. Why should I be expected to follow that particular Law then just because I don't want to.

It is exactly the same premise.

This is the same law that lets murderers, paedophiles, rapists and rioters out of prison after 3 years, the law is a mess and alot of us don't agree with those sentences but by your definition it's the law so deal with it.

And Omah im not showing ignorance, im actually fighting for basic rights that everyone should have, this is wrong and out of order.

[Pyramid*]

I take issue with this. How about...let's pass a law whereby if somebody irritates you, you can bludgeon them to death. Another law which allows the government to pick dodgy looking people off the street and jail them without trial under the pretense of 'protecting citizens from dodgy people'.

The law is there for a purpose, whether we agree with it or not. So let's just sit back and allow these things to happen, yes?

Take issue with it all you like, that's my stance on the matter and it happens to be the stance of the Law by which this country is governed by.

If you don't like it so much are so abhorrent to having to comply with the Law within this country: you're free to exit via any airport, ferry port - you also have the option of train now too.

[Mystic Mock]

I take issue with this. How about...let's pass a law whereby if somebody irritates you, you can bludgeon them to death. Another law which allows the government to pick dodgy looking people off the street and jail them without trial under the pretense of 'protecting citizens from dodgy people'.

The law is there for a purpose, whether we agree with it or not. So let's just sit back and allow these things to happen, yes?

Exactly Jack we should just stand by and let it happen:joker:, it's quite ridiculous really I think.

[Tom4784]

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?

[Mystic Mock]

Take issue with it all you like, that's my stance on the matter and it happens to be the stance of the Law by which this country is governed by.

If you don't like it so much are so abhorrent to having to comply with the Law within this country: you're free to exit via any airport, ferry port - you also have the option of train now too.

We shouldn't have to.

[Pyramid*]

This is the same law that lets murderers, paedophiles, rapists and rioters out of prison after 3 years, the law is a mess and alot of us don't agree with those sentences but by your definition it's the law so deal with it.

And Omah im not showing ignorance, im actually fighting for basic rights that everyone should have, this is wrong and out of order.

Yes, that very same Law - that very same one that uses your tax paying to put those people you mention through trials, (funded by the tax payer in most cases via Legal Aid), sentence them, pay all the respective court personnel, prison officers to feed them, house them, keep them warm, give them access to all sorts, then if bad enough: uses further £millions to give (some) new identities which they then reveal - and so it continues.

So I'm guessing then that when you start contibuting to PAYE, that you'll be holding back on some of your tax because you disagree with the Law that says you have no say in how much they take off your top line?

[Pyramid*]

Exactly Jack we should just stand by and let it happen:joker:, it's quite ridiculous really I think.
If you and Jack and others feel it is so ridiculous: what are your intentions then?

What are you going to do to change the Law?

[Jack_]

Take issue with it all you like, that's my stance on the matter and it happens to be the stance of the Law by which this country is governed by.

If you don't like it so much are so abhorrent to having to comply with the Law within this country: you're free to exit via any airport, ferry port - you also have the option of train now too.

Right, I just need a second to comprehend this. Because I'm gathering here that by virtue of you not responding to any of the points I made, you are actively sitting there saying that you would be happy to sit back and allow potentially innocent citizens going about their daily life to be jailed without trial because the state says 'they look dodgy', and for you to be able to bludgeon someone to death because they irritate you, all because that is 'the law by which this country is governed by'?

If I've got this right, you have hit a new low Pyramid...even by your standards this is something else. Hey, why not go the whole hog and turn the UK into a totalitarian, fascist run state while we're at it. After all...that'd be the law...no big deal.

[Pyramid*]

We shouldn't have to.

No one forces you to stay.

[Mystic Mock]

Yes, that very same Law - that very same one that uses your tax paying to put those people you mention through trials, (funded by the tax payer in most cases via Legal Aid), sentence them, pay all the respective court personnel, prison officers to feed them, house them, keep them warm, give them access to all sorts, then if bad enough: uses further £millions to give (some) new identities which they then reveal - and so it continues.

So I'm guessing then that when you start contibuting to PAYE, that you'll be holding back on some of your tax because you disagree with the Law that says you have no say in how much they take off your top line?

No I wouldn't hold off paying taxes because it benefits this country, no matter what stupid things they spend it on.

[Mystic Mock]

If you and Jack and others feel it is so ridiculous: what are your intentions then?

What are you going to do to change the Law?

Vote for a party that is actually up to date with the modern people and actually want the law done properly, sadly I haven't found that party yet and as im still underage I can't vote yet anyway.

[Omah]

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?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15763388

The concept of civic duty has been used by those in favour of creating a written constitution for the UK - the argument being that if you know what's expected of you by society, you're more likely to do it.

Nick Cowan, from the think tank Civitas, says for him, jury duty is key - not least because it requires a much greater time commitment from the citizen than simply ticking a box on a polling form.

"It's terribly important because it's one of the backstops against a justice system that might otherwise go out of control.

"It's not that jurors are delivering any expertise. In fact, it's because they're disinterested - they have no personal affiliation with the judge, the lawyers, the defendant or the police - that they're so important.

"Jurors are outside observers present to see justice being done and to call a halt to it if it doesn't work. If everyone started welching out of jury duty, you'd end up with juries that were dangerously unrepresentative.

Alison Park, who is research director at the National Centre for Social Research, says there's been a long term decline in the proportion of people who think it's their civic duty to take part in elections.

"If you divide the population into age groups, sense of civic duty is much stronger in older generations.

"Historically, people's sense has tended to get stronger as they've got older, but I just can't see that happening with today's younger generations.

"There's something about the lessons that young people are being taught, not just in school but more generally, about politics and the worth of politics. They are entering the electorate not being that interested or engaged, and without a sense of responsibility to vote."

Alison agrees that the experience of wartime - either personal, or close, from a parent - may be one factor behind it. The idea that those who have seen their political freedoms threatened view them as more valuable than those who haven't.

"You could also argue that politics now is more complicated. The world is so intertwined now, what a government can actually do is quite constrained, so you could argue that perhaps young people are more aware of the weaknesses of government.

"Whatever the reason, the difference between generations is indisputable and unless something very unexpected happens, young people are never going to discover the sense of civic duty that their grandparents have."

Sound words from Nick and Alison ..... :idc:

[Mystic Mock]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15763388





Sound words from Nick and Alison ..... :idc:

You still can't force somebody to do something that they don't want to do, we're not Burma.

[Mystic Mock]

No one forces you to stay.

I want to stay because I actually like my country and actually want it to sort itself out, im no coward that runs away from stuff when it gets even slightly dangerous.

[Pyramid*]

No I wouldn't hold off paying taxes because it benefits this country, no matter what stupid things they spend it on.

Which includes the very thing that you are complaining about !

Vote for a party that is actually up to date with the modern people and actually want the law done properly, sadly I haven't found that party yet and as im still underage I can't vote yet anyway.

There is no such Party that can offer that - you cannot please all of the people all of the time and the majority vote rules.

You can be sure that as far as the Law is concerned: there won't be much change in this particular remit, not anytime soon, even long after you are entitled to vote.

[Pyramid*]

I want to stay because I actually like my country and actually want it to sort itself out, im no coward that runs away from stuff when it gets even slightly dangerous.

It has nothing to do with cowardice. You have to accept that there are things that are not in your power to change - that your say or your 'wants' are not to the benefit of the country.

[Pyramid*]

You still can't force somebody to do something that they don't want to do, we're not Burma.

I'm forced to pay taxes, some of which are used to keep repeat paedophiles alive which I don't want my money being used on. I object to that but have no say in the matter. I don't live in Burma.

[Omah]

You still can't force somebody to do something that they don't want to do, we're not Burma.

In the UK, the role of the citizen is not well-defined within the law, but one thing is sure - if the UK were to become involved in a large-scale conflict and conscription was re-introduced, YOU (but not me) would be one of the first to be called up to get blown to pieces on some god-forsaken stretch of foreign soil, whether you wanted to go or not ..... :laugh2:

[Mystic Mock]

It has nothing to do with cowardice. You have to accept that there are things that are not in your power to change - that your say or your 'wants' are not to the benefit of the country.

But im not the only one wanting this as you can clearly see in this thread.

And how will allowing freedom of choice actually affect the country?:joker: im sorry Pyramid but unless you give me an explaination that's good then I can't accept this law.

[Mystic Mock]

In the UK, the role of the citizen is not well-defined within the law, but one thing is sure - if the UK were to become involved in a large-scale conflict and conscription was re-introduced, YOU (but not me) would be one of the first to be called up to get blown to pieces on some god-forsaken stretch of foreign soil, whether you wanted to go or not ..... :laugh2:

But I wouldn't go, I would take the prison sentence as at least I fought for what I believe in, I will not do something that I don't want to do and I do not want to be in The Millitary.

And how anybody can defend this law is beyond me, we bang on and on about how the Middle East are not in touch with the rest of the world because of there crazy laws, yet look at what this country classes as good and reasonable laws.:joker:

Im starting to think that there's not that bigger difference between the Middle East and the UK.

[Pyramid*]

But im not the only one wanting this as you can clearly see in this thread.

And how will allowing freedom of choice actually affect the country?:joker: im sorry Pyramid but unless you give me an explaination that's good then I can't accept this law.

Not many on this thread are even elible to vote - and when you are eligible, it will make no difference.

Freedom of choice is still restricted within the confines of the Law.

I've given you plenty of explanations, you simply appear to not be understanding them.

You cannot accept this Law? How are you going to 'not accept it'? You have no choice but to accept it.

Not agreeing with it is a different matter. You don't agree with it, but you have no choice but to accept it. (because as I said, Freedom of Choice is restricted). Even in the UK. You don't have to travel to Burma to experience it !

[Tom4784]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15763388







Sound words from Nick and Alison ..... :idc:

I'm not going to take anyone's argument seriously if they have to hide behind other people's quotes. Come talk to me when you can think for yourself.

For the sake of the topic though I'll argue with your quotes until you have some of your own input to add.

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.

[Pyramid*]

But I wouldn't go, I would take the prison sentence as at least I fought for what I believe in, I will not do something that I don't want to do and I do not want to be in The Millitary.

And how anybody can defend this law is beyond me, we bang on and on about how the Middle East are not in touch with the rest of the world because of there crazy laws, yet look at what this country classes as good and reasonable laws.:joker:

Im starting to think that there's not that bigger difference between the Middle East and the UK.

Live a few years in the Middle East, then come back to the thread......

[Jack_]

I'm forced to pay taxes, some of which are used to keep repeat pedophiles alive which I don't want my money being used on.

Uncivilised and in support of totalitarian, fascist states so long as that is the case in the eyes of the law. Just wow.

I had you down as many things, but not those. I have to say for once you have surpassed yourself. Like, really.

if the UK were to become involved in a large-scale conflict and conscription was re-introduced, YOU (but not me) would be one of the first to be called up to get blown to pieces on some god-forsaken stretch of foreign soil, whether you wanted to go or not ..... :laugh2:

I'd kill myself before it ever got to the state where I'd have to partake in national service, I can assure you.

[Pyramid*]

Uncivilised and in support of totalitarian, fascist states so long as that is the case in the eyes of the law. Just wow.

I had you down as many things, but not those. I have to say for once you have surpassed yourself. Like, really.




And? Am I meant to be offended by your insult? Sorry to disappoint you.

[Omah]

But I wouldn't go, I would take the prison sentence as at least I fought for what I believe in.


If you took the prison sentence, the authorities would put you in with sex-starved neanderthal knuckle-draggers who wouldn't give a damn about what YOU wanted or what you believed in ..... :eek:

[Omah]

I'd kill myself before it ever got to the state where I'd have to partake in national service, I can assure you.

So you say ..... :rolleyes:

[Omah]

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.

Have you sat on a jury ?

[Jack_]

And? Am I meant to be offended by your insult? Sorry to disappoint you.

It wasn't an insult in the slightest, I'm just quite surprised by your seeming support for fascist regimes and hypothetical totalitarian state-like laws.

I'm quite sure that if I were to suggest a law whereby you were banned from offering your opinions and ever speaking again, or else you would be hung, drawn and quartered, and it was passed, you wouldn't have so much support for 'the law by which this country is governed' then.

Honestly...from what you're saying, why don't we let any old fool off the street pass a new law which may of course endanger anyone of us, but let it pass, because of course that is 'the law'.

[Tom4784]

Have you sat on a jury ?

Ah, being as evasive as ever I see.

[Pyramid*]

It wasn't an insult in the slightest, I'm just quite surprised by your seeming support for fascist regimes and hypothetical totalitarian state-like laws.

I'm quite sure that if I were to suggest a law whereby you were banned from offering your opinions and ever speaking again, or else you would be hung, drawn and quartered, and it was passed, you wouldn't have so much support for 'the law by which this country is governed' then.

Honestly...from what you're saying, why don't we let any old fool off the street pass a new law which may of course endanger anyone of us, but let it pass, because of course that is 'the law'.

You know nothing about me - only your incorrect assumptions - so why are you surprised?

What I am saying is that people who have no idea of the bigger picture really shouldn't get too heavily involved in conversations such as this one when they have so littel understanding on the matter but think they do not need to understand to be able to offer up some rational reason for the beliefs....- proven by your comment about ''letting any old fool pass a new law''.

That confirms your own lack of knowledge on the subject. It seems clear that you have not the remotest idea of what is involved in passing a new Law? Often requiring many years of deliberation / consideration / consultation by official bodies (including non governmental and independant ones) that are involved, the stages involved, the time that it takes and what is involved.

[Omah]

Ah, being as evasive as ever I see.

You haven't answered the question - I'm trying to evaluate your credibility ..... :suspect:

[Pyramid*]

Have you sat on a jury ?

Ah, being as evasive as ever I see.

In the same manner that you have evaded answering Omah's question you mean....

[Omah]

In the same manner that you have evaded answering Omah's question you mean....

:joker:

[Mystic Mock]

Not many on this thread are even elible to vote - and when you are eligible, it will make no difference.

Freedom of choice is still restricted within the confines of the Law.

I've given you plenty of explanations, you simply appear to not be understanding them.

You cannot accept this Law? How are you going to 'not accept it'? You have no choice but to accept it.

Not agreeing with it is a different matter. You don't agree with it, but you have no choice but to accept it. (because as I said, Freedom of Choice is restricted). Even in the UK. You don't have to travel to Burma to experience it !

No I don't agree with your explanations, that's why I was wondering if you had an explanation that I could agree with.

And no I don't agree with it and I won't accept these type of laws, and as Omah already mentioned, I will not go into The Army if I don't want to, crisis or not and I shouldn't be expected to and dictated to do it.

[Jack_]

You know nothing about me - only your incorrect assumptions - so why are you surprised?

Let's get this straight. I posed some hypothetical questions to you, intended to question your stance on 'living by the law in which this country is governed', i.e. that if ludicrous, uncivilised, fascist laws were passed, would you still be in support of them, as after all, that is 'the law'. You didn't respond to any of these questions...therefore, I'm quite sure I can conclude that you would be in support of such laws being passed. That's not making assumptions.

Questioning laws and questioning government at all times is extremely important, otherwise we put ourselves in a position where things are suppressed and, as I previously stated, we end up living under a totalitarian state. Perhaps you're in support of that...I don't know, but I'd expect the majority aren't. This is why having the right to protest, free speech etc are so important, I'd expect however that you think these should be abolished, as we should live by the law and never question it or the government?

You only have to look at Hitler to see why everything I mentioned in the last paragraph is so important.

That confirms your own lack of knowledge on the subject. It seems clear that you have not the remotest idea of what is involved in passing a new Law? Often requiring many years of deliberation / consideration / consultation by official bodies (including non governmental and independant ones) that are involved, the stages involved, the time that it takes and what is involved.

Considering I'm doing an A Level where we've just recently looked into what goes into the process of passing laws, I'm fairly sure I'm clued up on what goes on. Of course the remark I made about 'letting any old fool pass a law' was entirely hypothetical, and you know...not real, or encompassing of actual reality. Hypothetical...but never mind.

[Pyramid*]

No I don't agree with your explanations, that's why I was wondering if you had an explanation that I could agree with.

And no I don't agree with it and I won't accept these type of laws, and as Omah already mentioned, I will not go into The Army if I don't want to, crisis or not and I shouldn't be expected to and dictated to do it.

You don't have to agree with my explanations.

It is very easy to say "I won't accept these type of Laws" when they in fact have no impact on you - as they have no impact on you now. That will change soon, and I guarantee you that you will not be in any position other than to 'break the law' and then be held accountable.

Ah, so you expect your fellow country men to all refuse to enter into service if is ever required then - if they all took the view you have - all those eligible to fight, to defend their country would be in jail, leaving the country defenceless. The country that you said you like? That's an rather bizarre concept you have there JF.

[Mystic Mock]

Live a few years in the Middle East, then come back to the thread......

Im not saying that there isn't a difference between the two, but im starting to think that they are not so backward to us as I originally thought.

[Mystic Mock]

You don't have to agree with my explanations.

It is very easy to say "I won't accept these type of Laws" when they in fact have no impact on you - as they have no impact on you now. That will change soon, and I guarantee you that you will not be in any position other than to 'break the law' and then be held accountable.

Ah, so you expect your fellow country men to all refuse to enter into service if is ever required then - if they all took the view you have - all those eligible to fight, to defend their country would be in jail, leaving the country defenceless. The country that you said you like? That's an rather bizarre concept you have there JF.

Im not saying that all should join me on this, and if there really was a crisis that required me to go into The Army I would help, but I don't think other people should have to join The Army in those circumstances if they don't want to, if they wanted to join then good but I think we should always have freedom of choice.

[Pyramid*]

Let's get this straight. I posed some hypothetical questions to you, intended to question your stance on 'living by the law in which this country is governed', i.e. that if ludicrous, uncivilised, fascist laws were passed, would you still be in support of them, as after all, that is 'the law'. You didn't respond to any of these questions...therefore, I'm quite sure I can conclude that you would be in support of such laws being passed. That's not making assumptions.

Questioning laws and questioning government at all times is extremely important, otherwise we put ourselves in a position where things are suppressed and, as I previously stated, we end up living under a totalitarian state. Perhaps you're in support of that...I don't know, but I'd expect the majority aren't. This is why having the right to protest, free speech etc are so important, I'd expect however that you think these should be abolished, as we should live by the law and never question it or the government?

You only have to look at Hitler to see why everything I mentioned in the last paragraph is so important.



Considering I'm doing an A Level where we've just recently looked into what goes into the process of passing laws, I'm fairly sure I'm clued up on what goes on. Of course the remark I made about 'letting any old fool pass a law' was entirely hypothetical, and you know...not real, or encompassing of actual reality. Hypothetical...but never mind.

Goodwin's Law just kicked in. :joker:

You are reaching a conclusion on what a person thinks when you know know nothing about that person. That's interesting.

Whilst I admire your 'passion' with all respect to you Jack ....An A Level? There's a very true saying about little knowledge being a very dangerous thing.

[Pyramid*]

Im not saying that there isn't a difference between the two, but im starting to think that they are not so backward to us as I originally thought.

As I say, go live in the Middle East for a few years: it's less to do with being backwards and more to do with understanding just how much Freedom we have here in the UK.

[Omah]

Goodwin's Law just kicked in. :joker:


:evilgrin:

[Mystic Mock]

As I say, go live in the Middle East for a few years: it's less to do with being backwards and more to do with understanding just how much Freedom we have here in the UK.

We have more freedom in some ways, but wait until all these new laws to censor the Internet kicks in, that's even less freedom to do what you want.

[Pyramid*]

No I don't agree with your explanations, that's why I was wondering if you had an explanation that I could agree with.

And no I don't agree with it and I won't accept these type of laws, and as Omah already mentioned, I will not go into The Army if I don't want to, crisis or not and I shouldn't be expected to and dictated to do it.


Im not saying that all should join me on this, and if there really was a crisis that required me to go into The Army I would help, but I don't think other people should have to join The Army in those circumstances if they don't want to, if they wanted to join then good but I think we should always have freedom of choice.

What if you chose to 'not want to and not do it' and every other eligible person took that same stance - you know - these laws that you said you weren't accepting - if everyone took that stance - who would defend this country?

[Pyramid*]

:evilgrin:

My work here is done. :D

right folks, enjoyed the healthy robust nature, be interesting to follow up.

goodnight to you all. Tempus fugit.:wavey:

[Mystic Mock]

What if you chose to 'not want to and not do it' and every other eligible person took that same stance - you know - these laws that you said you weren't accepting - if everyone took that stance - who would defend this country?

Not everyone would run away from helping the country out though, but I think the people should always have a choice on if they would like to join these services or not.

[Tom4784]

In the same manner that you have evaded answering Omah's question you mean....

Why should I endulge in such a lazy attempt to discredit my argument?

[Omah]

Why should I endulge in such a lazy attempt to discredit my argument?

So you haven't sat on a jury ..... :hmph:

[Pyramid*]

Not everyone would run away from helping the country out though, but I think the people should always have a choice on if they would like to join these services or not.

How do you know they wouldn't? You don't.

The Services are being run at absolue minimum levels currently. It would be necessary to draft in vast numbers of eligible fit men and women. If all of them took the same stance as you suggest they should be able to do : if they all took that same view: who would defend the country?



Why should I endulge in such a lazy attempt to discredit my argument?

Conversely, why should he indulge your equally as evasive technique?

[Jack_]

Goodwin's Law just kicked in. :joker:

You are reaching a conclusion on what a person thinks when you know know nothing about that person. That's interesting.

I'm reaching a conclusion based on what you have posted in this thread on a particular subject. Nothing more, nothing less. You posted it, not me.

It's a shame, I was beginning to think that since coming back you had changed, or were starting to change some of your age old tendencies, you know...avoiding or bypassing valid points, resorting to cliches and pedantry. But it seems not. Same old Pyramid, same old techniques.

At the end of the day, Godwin's Law or not, Hitler removed vital civil rights all of which I mentioned in order for him to pass through his fascist, ugly regime. If you don't think things like the right to protest, free speech, and questioning the government and the law are important, then more fool you.

As a side note...the BNP manifesto is in the post. Enjoy.

[Tom4784]

So you haven't sat on a jury ..... :hmph:

How does that affect anything? it's a losing tactic to focus on the unimportant details rather then tackling the issues at hand Omah.

[Mystic Mock]

How do you know they wouldn't? You don't.

The Services are being run at absolue minimum levels currently. It would be necessary to draft in vast numbers of eligible fit men and women. If all of them took the same stance as you suggest they should be able to do : if they all took that same view: who would defend the country?





Conversely, why should he indulge your equally as evasive technique?

It's very unlikely that all 60 million people in the United Kingdom would not fight for this country don't you think?

And I said that I would fight for this country if I had to, but I don't think I should be forced to do it and neither should anybody else either, and lets face facts here, a country could attack us tommorrow and there's nothing we could do about it because without America we are not that strong to take on.

Gosh I sounded like Lostalex then lol.

[Pyramid*]

I'm reaching a conclusion based on what you have posted in this thread on a particular subject. Nothing more, nothing less. You posted it, not me.

It's a shame, I was beginning to think that since coming back you had changed, or were starting to change some of your age old tendencies, you know...avoiding or bypassing valid points, resorting to cliches and pedantry. But it seems not. Same old Pyramid, same old techniques.

At the end of the day, Godwin's Law or not, Hitler removed vital civil rights all of which I mentioned in order for him to pass through his fascist, ugly regime. If you don't think things like the right to protest, free speech, and questioning the government and the law are important, then more fool you.

As a side note...the BNP manifesto is in the post. Enjoy.


Your rather poor attempt at patronising me and throwing your usual brand of personal insults because you are unable to provide any tangible response to my reply to you is shocking.

You may have an extensive vocabulary Jack, but a lot of big words put together when they lack any substance, in reality, to use a well known phrase, are not worth 'jack sh.*'.

'looking into' something at the start of A level is a world away from fully understanding precisely what is involved. That is a fact - we've all been there when we've had a passion for a new topic at school - but honestly: the knowledge you think you have is so limited but you will not realise that till much later on in life.

[Pyramid*]

It's very unlikely that all 60 million people in the United Kingdom would not fight for this country don't you think?

And I said that I would fight for this country if I had to, but I don't think I should be forced to do it and neither should anybody else either, and lets face facts here, a country could attack us tommorrow and there's nothing we could do about it because without America we are not that strong to take on.

Gosh I sounded like Lostalex then lol.

LOL No No and no again. :D

I'm away to bed - night night.

[Omah]

How does that affect anything? it's a losing tactic to focus on the unimportant details rather then tackling the issues at hand Omah.

If you haven't sat on a jury then you can't possibly know what goes on inside a jury room - if you haven't been summoned for jury service (and attended) then you probably don't know how the jury system works - no book, video or film can do the experience justice - I used to think all juries were "12 Angry Men" or the extras on "Rumpole of the Bailey" ..... :laugh3:

[Omah]

Lets face facts here, a country could attack us tomorrow and there's nothing we could do about it because without America we are not that strong to take on.

I believe that's called a "defeatist" attitude ..... :idc:

[Jack_]

Your rather poor attempt at patronising me and throwing your usual brand of personal insults because you are unable to provide any tangible response to my reply to you is shocking.

Oh come off it...you can hardly talk to anyone about providing any kind of 'tangible response'. Please, don't make me laugh.

'looking into' something at the start of A level is a world away from fully understanding precisely what is involved. That is a fact - we've all been there when we've had a passion for a new topic at school - but honestly: the knowledge you think you have is so limited but you will not realise that till much later on in life.

What was that thing you just accused me of again? A 'poor attempt at patronising'? Ah yeah...that was it. Funny that, considering right after you said that you then went on to post this. I can smell hypocrisy...I wonder which direction it's coming from.

Please, do tell me, if experience is oh so necessary in order to justify an opinion, then why is it that some people forty years older than me hold the same opinions with regards to questioning governments and the law and protecting civil rights? Please, I would love to know. If it all boils down to experience, then why is it that some people with tonnes of experience still hold the same opinions as I do?

[Mystic Mock]

I believe that's called a "defeatist" attitude ..... :idc:

I like to class myself as being realistic but whatever floats your boat.

[Pyramid*]

Oh come off it...you can hardly talk to anyone about providing any kind of 'tangible response'. Please, don't make me laugh.



What was that thing you just accused me of again? A 'poor attempt at patronising'? Ah yeah...that was it. Funny that, considering right after you said that you then went on to post this. I can smell hypocrisy...I wonder which direction it's coming from.

Please, do tell me, if experience is oh so necessary in order to justify an opinion, then why is it that some people forty years older than me hold the same opinions with regards to questioning governments and the law and protecting civil rights? Please, I would love to know. If it all boils down to experience, then why is it that some people with tonnes of experience still hold the same opinions as I do?

Jack, you do not appear to understand what constructive feedback is -which is what I gave you regarding your passion for your studies and your belief that you think you know what is involved. You will not understand what I am saying in this respect until you do have that bit more 'age' under your belt. That is not patronising - it is very much being said from being the truth in that, like you, at an age where you are grasping something which which you have a passion for, you think the text book knowledge is all you need. It's not, that's all I am trying to say to you, but no matter how I try to word it to you, you are taking it as a personal slight.

I mentioned nothing about needing (or not) tons experience. I mentioned knowledge Jack. There is a vast difference in the meanings.

So what if there are some people with 'tonnes' of experience who hold the same opinions as you do. That doesn't make them or you right or effective.

I know lots of people who have experience in all manner of things - but are completely useless in effecting & implementing that experience efficiently.

[Tom4784]

If you haven't sat on a jury then you can't possibly know what goes on inside a jury room - if you haven't been summoned for jury service (and attended) then you probably don't know how the jury system works - no book, video or film can do the experience justice - I used to think all juries were "12 Angry Men" or the extras on "Rumpole of the Bailey" ..... :laugh3:

All you have are assumptions and evasive maneuvres Omah. What do you know about my credentials? The right answer is nothing and I know **** all about your's so why don't you actually try to argue against my points for once instead of running in circles trying to avoid them?

I'm bored of this repetitive and childish game, come talk to me when you actually want to discuss the topic at hand.

[Marsh.]

I like to class myself as being realistic but whatever floats your boat.

Just to interject on this one small point. You think because we may not be strong enough to hold our own without America's help, we shouldn't bother and just give in? Would you not rather go down fighting for your country, for your freedom?

[Kizzy]

If you haven't sat on a jury then you can't possibly know what goes on inside a jury room - if you haven't been summoned for jury service (and attended) then you probably don't know how the jury system works - no book, video or film can do the experience justice - I used to think all juries were "12 Angry Men" or the extras on "Rumpole of the Bailey" ..... :laugh3:

I disagree....One jury is equal to the next...picked at random , a cross section of peers that as civil duty sit on a jury.....Whats wrong with that?..:conf:

[Pyramid*]

All you have are assumptions and evasive maneuvres Omah. What do you know about my credentials? The right answer is nothing and I know **** all about your's so why don't you actually try to argue against my points for once instead of running in circles trying to avoid them?

I'm bored of this repetitive and childish game, come talk to me when you actually want to discuss the topic at hand.

That's just out and out rudeness Dezzy and is unnecessary.

If someone can't enter a debates thread to discuss a serious debate without being sworn and verbally abused by a moderator - then it's a very poor show.

[Jack_]

Jack, you do not appear to understand what constructive feedback is -which is what I gave you regarding your passion for your studies and your belief that you think you know what is involved. You will not understand what I am saying in this respect until you do have that bit more 'age' under your belt. That is not patronising - it is very much being said from being the truth in that, like you, at an age where you are grasping something which which you have a passion for, you think the text book knowledge is all you need. It's not, that's all I am trying to say to you, but no matter how I try to word it to you, you are taking it as a personal slight.

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

I mentioned nothing about needing (or not) tons experience. I mentioned knowledge Jack. There is a vast difference in the meanings.

So what if there are some people with 'tonnes' of experience who hold the same opinions as you do. That doesn't make them or you right or effective.

I know lots of people who have experience in all manner of things - but are completely useless in effecting & implementing that experience efficiently.

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.

[Jords]

Jack and Pyra need to have some hate-sex.

[Omah]

All you have are assumptions and evasive maneuvres Omah. What do you know about my credentials?

See below :

The right answer is nothing and I know **** all about your's

Well, I HAVE done jury service and say on FOUR juries, dealing with child molestation, firearms offences, murder and fraud.

so why don't you actually try to argue against my points for once instead of running in circles trying to avoid them?

Because, IMO, you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm bored of this repetitive and childish game, come talk to me when you actually want to discuss the topic at hand.

Frankly, I don't see the point.

[Omah]

I disagree....One jury is equal to the next...picked at random , a cross section of peers that as civil duty sit on a jury.....Whats wrong with that?..:conf:

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 ..... :laugh2:

[Mystic Mock]

Just to interject on this one small point. You think because we may not be strong enough to hold our own without America's help, we shouldn't bother and just give in? Would you not rather go down fighting for your country, for your freedom?

I would but I wouldn't want to be forced into doing something that I wouldn't want to do.

[Omah]

Just to interject on this one small point. You think because we may not be strong enough to hold our own without America's help, we shouldn't bother and just give in? Would you not rather go down fighting for your country, for your freedom?

Yeah, that's more like it - Dunkirk, the Few, the Blitz, the Desert Rats, the Cruel Sea - Blimey, I've come over all patriotic ..... :thumbs:

(They don't like it up'em, Pikey ..... :evilgrin:)

[Ammi]

Anyway...going back to the OP...I think 56 days is harsh..in fact any custodial sentence is harsh imo..there are people who harm someone..and don't get custodial sentences

..on the opinion of who should do jusy service..well I suppose if we had 'volunteers'..you might have to question why they're volunteering and whether they're the right people..so I'm not sure about that

...but then if people are 'forced' and really against it..that could effect their opinions..

...hmmm

[Tom4784]

See below :



Well, I HAVE done jury service and say on FOUR juries, dealing with child molestation, firearms offences, murder and fraud.



Because, IMO, you don't know what you're talking about.



Frankly, I don't see the point.

It's very easy to say that you've done something on the internet so I tend to focus on the arguments at hand and you haven't provided a solid one since I cut through your little quotes so instead you've been focused on trying to make out you're an expert on the subject without actually adding anything to the topic.

I don't have to bring in my own credentials into this since I can rely on my own argument to get things done, You lack a cohesive argument so all you can do is try to discredit me. You're transparent in your approach Omah and I can't see the point in carrying on this charade since it's obvious you know nothing about what you claim to be an expert in.

[Pyramid*]

It's very easy to say that you've done something on the internet so I tend to focus on the arguments at hand and you haven't provided a solid one since I cut through your little quotes so instead you've been focused on trying to make out you're an expert on the subject without actually adding anything to the topic.

I don't have to bring in my own credentials into this since I can rely on my own argument to get things done, You lack a cohesive argument so all you can do is try to discredit me. You're transparent in your approach Omah and I can't see the point in carrying on this charade since it's obvious you know nothing about what you claim to be an expert in.

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? :conf:

[Kizzy]

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 ..... :laugh2:

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

[Pyramid*]

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]

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? :conf:

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]

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?

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.

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.

[Tom4784]

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? :conf:

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*]

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. :blush:

[Tom4784]

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]

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

:joker:

[Pyramid*]

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]

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.

[Tom4784]

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*]

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.

[Marsh.]

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]

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]

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 ..... :thumbs:

[Omah]

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]

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?....

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t55/Lisah_Muller_photos/michael-vick-jury-cartoon.jpg

[Marsh.]

:joker:

[MTVN]

Poor Michael Vick

[Pyramid*]

Poor Michael Vick

:joker:

[waterhog]

the dury is out lol