[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?