Reply to: For those who have done Jury service

[Turion]

Yes, in the past a mortgage would have disqualified you from jury service

Bloody right too. Those who have participated in this latest orgy of debt created mis-economics are the ones who should be in the dock.

And if they prevented jury service due to speeding tickets, juries would consist of +75yrs, hat wearing, Rover 45 drivers

[threaded]

I think they ran into supply contraints. These freemen would probably got a bit peeved being asked to serve every month! that's why they had to widen the criteria.

Yes, in the past a mortgage would have disqualified you from jury service, as it blooming well should, but now I understand that people with speeding tickets, and even disqualifications, can sit on juries for other road abusers, it's madness!

[Turion]

In the past you had to be the equivalent of a high earner/educated i.e. a free man, to sit on a jury. Letting the great unwashed onto the job was just one of the ways TPTB have been using to discredit the system over the years.

I think they ran into supply contraints. These freemen would probably got a bit peeved being asked to serve every month! that's why they had to widen the criteria.

[threaded]

Basically joe public is thick as ****, generally does not have a clue and is totally naive. That's why they have the vote - so New Lie, et al can stay in power.

In the past you had to be the equivalent of a high earner/educated i.e. a free man, to sit on a jury. Letting the great unwashed onto the job was just one of the ways TPTB have been using to discredit the system over the years.

[Turion]

Maybe they should appoint juries to judge IR35, SS60 and maybe any other tax case. As tax investigations are normally against people with above average incomes I think jealosy and a 'he can afford it so should pay up regardless... mentality would win here'. After all if it's a cross section of society, the jury would earn £25k/yr average. I remember a recent poll of ordinary joe public that reckoned £62k YEAR (not week!) was a good salary for a TOP international footballer! WTF. For us ITers I think it was £30K

Basically joe public is thick as ****, generally does not have a clue and is totally naive. That's why they have the vote - so New Lie, et al can stay in power.

[Lucifer Box]

You need to read up about troika. After you appreciate the difference you should stop complaining about UK courts.

Not complaining in the slightest, just pointing out my practical experience of what random selection of jurors can result in. As Winston Churchill said of democracy (to paraphrase), "it's the least bad system".

[NickFitz]

This approach seems to have worked pretty well for a very long time. I don't think it is right for a judge to actually make guilty/not guilty decision in any serious case (murder etc), their job is to stay neutral and watch that rules are obeyed by all sides, it should be up to the random people who are unlikely to be involved in any possible institutional coverups to make key decision.

WHS

Unless you'd like to bring back the Star Chamber...

[AtW]

Great, huh?

You need to read up about troika. After you appreciate the difference you should stop complaining about UK courts.

[Lucifer Box]

Just an Observation

At least a quarter of the jury I served on were nuts. There was no real evidence that the accused had done anything wrong. Even the prosecutor seemed to find it difficult to outline what the guy was actually alleged to have done wrong. He was up on an accessory charge because he had given the perpetrator a lift to the scene of the alleged (and very minor) crime. The criteria the judge outlined for him to guilty in law made it clear that there was no way he could be guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

One juror said that only God could decide that someone was truly innocent, therefore we should find him guilty.

Another said that we should find him guilty as an example to deter others from associating with shady people.

A third said that he just looked shifty and that even if he hadn't done this one he had probably done bad things in the past so we should find him guilty.

Great, huh?

[AtW]

Quite right AtW! Turion is talking like a naive idealistic idiot.

He is okay when it comes to house prices, something that I can't say about majority of people on this crazy board...

[fzbucks]

why go the whole hog and get rid of the whole court process and just have police decide your fate on the spot?

Joking!

[OwlHoot]

This approach seems to have worked pretty well for a very long time. I don't think it is right for a judge to actually make guilty/not guilty decision in any serious case (murder etc), their job is to stay neutral and watch that rules are obeyed by all sides, it should be up to the random people who are unlikely to be involved in any possible institutional coverups to make key decision.

Quite right AtW! Turion is talking like a naive idealistic idiot.

[AtW]

That is the travesty that should be addressed.

This approach seems to have worked pretty well for a very long time. I don't think it is right for a judge to actually make guilty/not guilty decision in any serious case (murder etc), their job is to stay neutral and watch that rules are obeyed by all sides, it should be up to the random people who are unlikely to be involved in any possible institutional coverups to make key decision.

[Turion]

In my opinion the judgement of innocence or guilt should be only be done trained by professional judges, as done in France for example. Letting unqualified, disinterested and often plain stupid people judge complex cases just leaves me baffled. That is the travesty that should be addressed.

[AtW]

You people make me sick. Jury service is what helps the people to keep control of the justice. Would you have liked others to dodge this responsibility if YOU were accused of something serious?