Your day in court

[Rebecca Loos]

yeah but you said 'murder victim', not 'manslaughter victim', so it is life. So there.

[threaded]

Xoggoth: Don't worry in 20 years the UK will have Sharia law anyways. This is just one of the many moves towards it.

[Lucifer Box]

I've just been summoned for jury service, so I don't want to waste even more of my time listening to some relatives telling me how the perfect son/daughter/brother/father/mother who lit up the lives of all she/he knew has been cruelly snatched away from them.

[AtW]

I've just been summoned for jury service

There are legal ways not to serve in the jury, even though I think its every good citizen's responsibility.

[Not So Wise]

As ASB pointed out the article says this would be at sentencing stage not verdict stage, so it would not be to Joe blogs jury member but rather to the judge.

And as the judge is meant to be dispasionate and only interested in the law i would say he has no reason to hear anything from the family

Though personally wish they would do away with the whole "amature" jury system, like honestly look around you, how many people do you see everyday who you consider a "moron", then think that one day they could be on a jury for a murder trial...hell they could be on the jury for your murder trail (either as victum or accused)...that thought scares the hell out every time i think about it

Even the lowlyest most pointless jobs these days require training and tests to pass but to sit in judgement over your fellow man, in matters of life and death, they let any old sod do it, hell even chico would be allowed to sit on a jury

[OwlHoot]

There are legal ways not to serve in the jury, even though I think its every good citizen's responsibility.

Yes right - turn up in a pinstripe, with a bowler hat and brolly, and a copy of the Telegraph under your arm.

You'll be out of the courtroom doors before your highly polished shoes touch the ground

[Lucifer Box]

There are legal ways not to serve in the jury, even though I think its every good citizen's responsibility.

Fewer and fewer. The law was changed last year so that lawyers, previously exempt from service (for good reasons), are now called. A mate of mine who works for the court service says this is a farce and wastes enormous amounts of time as invariably the lawyer chosen to sit on the jury either knows one or both of the briefs, the judge, some of the witnesses, the arresting officer, etc., etc. They then have to through rejecting him/her as a juror, selecting someone else, and so on. Major waste of public money and his/her time, as they just spend two weeks sitting in the waiting area.

On the other hand, someone else I know managed to get themselves excused from jury service when called to sit on the trial of a black gentleman by saying she was an extreme racist and felt she could not give the guy a fair trial (it wasn't true, but this was a dangerous gangster trial and she really didn't want to have to change her identity and/or flee the country at the end of the case).

[OwlHoot]

Though personally wish they would do away with the whole "amature" jury system, like honestly look around you, how many people do you see everyday who you consider a "moron", then think that one day they could be on a jury for a murder trial...hell they could be on the jury for your murder trail (either as victum or accused)...that thought scares the hell out every time i think about it

Even the lowlyest most pointless jobs these days require training and tests to pass but to sit in judgement over your fellow man, in matters of life and death, they let any old sod do it, hell even chico would be allowed to sit on a jury

I must admit that the idea of Chico on a jury, or anyone equally dogmatic, is a scary prospect.

But not nearly as scary as a trio of glorified civil servants, dependent on the support of their political masters for promotion etc, going into a secret huddle and deciding how best to decide the case in the light of Government targets, e.g. less ethnic minorities to be found guilty but more convictions for rape needed to bolster their feminist credentials.

I'd sooner put my trust in the common sense of a bunch of chavs than be at the mercy of French-style Government advocates.

The Crown Prosecution Service is an example in miniature of what happens when civil servants make decisions whether to prosecute - Before Edward Heath set it up in the 1970s, the UK had Grand Juries (as they still do in the US) to decide whether there was a case to answer. Only if the Grand Jury returned a true bill [of indictment] would a case come to court before a petty jury (i.e. the kind of jury we still have today).

[AtW]

Fewer and fewer. The law was changed last year so that lawyers, previously exempt from service (for good reasons), are now called.

If you know about the case to be heard, ie read in papers - and lots of stuff gets published before court hearing, then you MUST be discharged.

Additionally there is a term that I unfortunately can't remember, but it means that a juror would disregard judge's instruction due to his own beliefs. No sane Judge would approve such a juror.

But as I said every decent citizen should be honoured by taking part in the justice system.

[Lucifer Box]

If you know about the case to be heard, ie read in papers - and lots of stuff gets published before court hearing, then you MUST be discharged.

From that trial, yes. But:

(i) The vast majority of trials don't hit the news beforehand.
(ii) You are then simply assigned to another trial starting on the same day or a day or two later.