Should 70-75 year old people sit on a jury?

Now what evidence does this man draw on to reach this conclusion? Predudice is to be found in all ages and walks of life. Fortunately, in a jury of 12 there will be a range of experiences and views and there will be sufficient people there to challenge prejudice.

agree with MicElf- if we accept the principle of trial by jury, then why not increase the age limit? As she says, part of the checks and balances of the system is that there are 12 people

Currently magistrates are subject to compulsory retirement at the age of 70. Tribunal members are required to step down at 70. Judicial Tribunal members serve until the age of 70 although there is discretionary power to extend on an annual basis until 75 if it is in the public interest to do so. Judges retire at 70 although there is discretionary power to extend on an annual basis until 75 if there is a business case for extension.

So, what about jury members Aka, do you think the same rules should apply?

Would it not also mean there would be more physical factors to consider such as extra loo breaks, days off for hospital visits, inability to follow the case through hearing loss?

Think it might be an attempt to get more jurors who cannot claim loss of wages. But if you want an option Kitty I'd say yes, raise the age but make it optional so that those who want to can do service but anyone can opt out on grounds of age.

Might balance juries more, I understand most working, professional people get excused which can lead to a lower level of general education on juries. Like the first V Price trial.

Why would older jurors be prejudiced against younger defendants? He might be, but it doesn't follow that all older people will be anymore than because one 21 year old is prejudiced against older defendants all younger jurors would be.

Aka I'm not quite sure if a comparison can be drawn between jurors and others involved in the CJS. Jurors are a group of twelve, others you have mentioned sit alone or, in the case of magistrates, on a bench of three, so there is a need to free up positions to younger people coming through the system and also to ensure that the mean age does not become too high. The addition of 70 to 75 year old jurors (a number of whom would be excluded by reason of infirmity) would not make very much difference to the mean age of a jury and would ensure that those citizens who in this age group and able to do so, would add the benefit of age and experience to the judicial system.

The man on Breakfast seemed to think that all defendants were young! While I was at Court yesterday a fifty year old man pleaded guilty to common assault!

I saw that interview. Why were we at the bowling green? Couldn't be a stereotypical, ageist view from the BBC could it? To the man who talked about prejudice, I felt like saying, "Perhaps the older people would be capable of understanding that they were there to evaluate the evidence, not to judge on appearances?".

This is surely a clear case of ageism! I don't know about the rest of you, but I certainly still have all my marbles and I don't believe I would be prejudiced against any particular type of person.

I think I said I was in favour of a raised age limit MiceElf but that if an older person wished to be excused duty simply on grounds of age then that should automatically be acceptable.

JessM I don't think you're correct; most working, professional people do not get excused jury duty. My OH is one such, he was allowed to delay his service once but is still required to do it and will be in October. He is a VP of a large multi national company and pretty smart at some things

Aka I agree and think your suggestion of opting to be excused is a good idea. It's a commitment of a minimum of two weeks sitting through a potentially complex case or cases. Not sure I'd want to do it.

I don't think there should be an upper age limit at all. Personally after sitting on the hard jurer benches at our court for any length of time I'd now need someone to help lever me up - and occassionally I feel the need for a doze after lunch. And I'm only 65. But I have a friend, a tiny hyperactive lady who's now in her late 80s, who'd have no problem coping.

One thing I have longed for is to be called for jury duty but no such luck. Now I suspect I would be asking for extra loo breaks, etc as mentioned by Aka. I do think that I should honestly try to weigh up the evidence and would probably find my sympathy edging towards the young because I was one once and certainly no angel . If it were to be made optional this would bump up the costs and would not allow for a selection of 'good men and true'

All in all I don't think I go for the age increase but it is a close run thing and not based on ageism in either direction.

Absolutely no reason why over 75's should be any more prejudiced than
anyone else. In fact, I think the age limit could be higher than that.
Age and experience must be useful, I think. And some of us still have all our marbles intact.

I am quite ambivalent about it , I do know though the last thing I would want is be called for jury service .

Do not really have time !

Although I have never been called for jury service and have always wanted to be, I feel now that if I was getting bored during a trial, I may have a tiny nap, especially after lunch or towards the end of the day. My joints would not cope with sitting in one position for too long so I would also need a heave or a forklift truck to move me. I would not be prejudiced against younger defendants but I do not know if my rapidly receding brain cells could cope with the more complex cases.

I know a man who is blind, 90 years old and sharp as a knife. He would be an asset.

I did jury sevice twice when I was in my 40s. I don't see a problem with older people sitting on a jury. After all they have many years of experience which could prove useful. They might prove more useful than some of the very young jurors who don't want to be there and are bored. Just saying..

I think it is perfectly in order for people of 70 - -75 years to sit on a jury. For one thing they have years of experience behind them.
A friend of mine has just sat on a jury, she is 69 years old. There were a couple of jurors in their early 20's and she was quite shocked about how ignorant they were on matters legal. Also they couldn't understand what both the lawyers and judges were saying - as they 'spoke such long words'. Maybe instead of worrying about the jurors ages we should be concerned about jurors abilities.LizG I've sat twice on a jury, both times involved a lot of waiting around and then the cases we sat on were just boring. My friend found her case quite distressing as it involved a paedophile and the photos and evidence were particularly awful. Apparently the photos shown were mild compared to the others kept back as not suitable for a layman's eyes.
One of the jurors was business man who had been able to dodge duty for some time but was forced to sit this time. He told the other jurors he'd be furious if they sat around deciding for too long.

I agree that many people between the ages of 70 and 75 are suitable to sit on juries.

However, it is also the case that, generally speaking, older people can start to lose the plot a bit.

Literally! DH and I laugh because sometimes after watching a complicated something or other on tv we both admit we don't entirely understand what was going on. Driving skills deteriorate for some old folk as well. In other words the brain takes longer to get a grip. Then there is the tendency to nod off in the middle of the day.

And there would be at least some elderly people who would be scandalised if a defendant didn't 'talk proper'

It is also the case that many elderly people have no idea/will not admit that they are losing their powers.

Would we be able to ask them to stop mumbling?