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

Maybe there'll be a fitness for purpose test before you can sit on the jury once past 70? On second thoughts maybe there should one for all jurors!

Definitely!

Petallus- I have owned up to slowly losing my marbles!

My appointment is actually up to my 72nd birthday, they have been extending us to 75.
Amazing isn't it that its dep of justice is practising age discrimination.

Petallus I think you too are guilty of ageism. I do not agree that 'generally speaking, older people can start to lose the plot a bit.' Some may, but remember that there are also quite a lot of clueless young and middle aged people who are incapable of following a trial.

I was listening to the last survivor of the WW2 Dambusters being interviewed on R4 on Saturday. He sounded decades young and it was quite clear that he was more mentally alert and on the ball that other men half his age. He would be more than capable of being a juror - and he was in his 90s!

All the jurors who have been fined/imprisoned for surfing the web about crime and defendant/witnesses, tweeting or texting during the trial on the trial despite clear instructions not to do it have been people under 30.

I also don't think we necessarily loose our faculties as we get older and, no, I don't think it is because we can't admit it. A few weeks ago I was out with our new neighbour who is 45 and we were saying that another house had just changed hands. She said "but they are pensioners!" I reminded her that I was too and she just said, yes, but you aren't really!

I would be very happy if all jurors had to be tested for a basic level of intelligence but then wonder if some might fail the test deliberately! Can we also test people before we allow them to vote

The wisdom of 'elders' used to be respected, but not quite so much these days.
I find that younger people are often surprised by how much knowledge we more mature people have amassed.

I think health issues would cause difficulties though for some older jurers.

But health issues, although more common as you get older, exist for younger people too. There must be policies in place already that could be applied - either for being excused or for it to be taken into account.

I wouldn't want to sit on a bench with someone who might 'loose' their faculties Moved

I believe it is proposed that older people would be excused if there were genuine medical reasons. My sister certainly could not sit on a hard bench for several hours.

Aka!

(Don't joke about stuff like that!)

Aka conjures a picture . Actually I can spell, just not type!

It seems a sensible move to me. I understand in Scotland the age limit has already been extended, but there you are indeed allowed to opt out after 70 if you want to.

I am more concerned about the fact that 18 year olds are allowed to sit on juries. My DS received a Jury Service summons a few weeks before his 18th birthday and had to go actually on that day for the first time. He was past over several times and then eventually had to sit in on child abuse case. Obviously we never discussed the case with him as per the instructions given to him; however, I do remember that the man was found not guilty, and then it turned out that he was a serial offender - now it could, of course, have been that this was one thing which he hadn't done, but I do remember DS arriving home and being absolutely devastated about the jury's decision. How many 18 year olds would argue with 11 other adults?

Having done jury service at the age of 60 my only concern if I were to be called in my seventies would be that it's a very long day. If you factor in early morning travelling to get to court on time plus a possibly long drive home in rush hour traffic, most seventy plus year olds would find it exhausting. The copious note taking and concentration during the sitting is tiring in itself and you can't exactly have an afternoon snooze!!

I'm sure there are many people in their seventies who could cope with a lengthy trial especially if you don't live far from the courthouse but who can be sure?

The afternoon snooze shouldn't be a problem. One afternoon I was struggling to stay awake when I realised one of the magistrates was nodding suspiciously as was the usher

I don't think I'm guilty of ageism FlicketyB.

I have noticed changes in myself as I get older (I'm 70) and also in DH who is a few years older. Friends of the same age comment on the fact that their memory is worse now, they don't have the stamina for reading long novels as they used to and they tire more easily.

Anecdotal evidence yes but research has shown that reaction times slow down as one gets older and driving patterns change.

Incidentally, ageism doesn't just go in one direction does it? Plenty of it is aimed at the young.

It definitely was on Breakfast this morning Petallus which is what prompted the thread.

I am in favour of raising gthe age limit - think that older people have life experience to bring to the table and can be more balanced in their outlook.

I was one called for jury service, but was expempted at that time because I was a social employed by the relevant local authority and it was thought that there was too high a chance that I would know the defendents or their families!

My OH is worried about the raising of the age limit as he does not feel fit enough, but I am sure he would be exempted on the grounds of ill health.

If we have people in parliament, especially the House of Lords, who are 75 and make the laws, why not have jurors of a similar age to put them into practice?

Or judges or judicial members.

I agree with raising the age, and good suggestions that people with health problems could be excused. I don't think it's true that many professionals are excused due to the demands of their work. My sister is a director at a university, and did two long trials. Both were rape trials, one went not guilty by majority though it emerged the man had previous convictions for sexual offences. The other was a guilty finding. Both trials were exhausting and distressing for jury members, for many of them it was their first experience of courts/crime etc. Being a jury member is a big responsibility. Older people would bring a lot of life experience and I don't think they'd be likely to have more prejudices than younger people. In fact, for many of us tolerance is something than develops along with our life experiences

I can't see that having slightly slower reactions would be a disadvantage in a juror. Split second decisions are the last thing they should be aiming for. And if they are retired, they would be less likely to want to shorten debate so they could get back to work, or to young families.

Well I was 70 today and certainly no longer have the physical stamina I had but as far as mental effort goes I can still read long books, mainly research material for the independent research and academic editing I still do.

I do have memory lapses, but mainly for the inconsequential trivia of life; like exactly what I was doing last Thursday if it was a day when I just pottered around at home. I certainly do not lose keys or glasses or forget what day it is.

I think one of the reasons for raising the age is that so many people who are working ask for a deferment due to work responsibilities. Maybe there would be more people willing to sit if they are retired.

Happy Birthday Flickety! Hope you have a lovely day.

I'll be joining you as a septuagenarian on 31st and agree about mental faculties still being acute. My Dad was still sharp at 93 so I'm hoping I'll be the same. Could not cope with the hard jury box seats for long though.

Being capable , competent, for ALL jurors is a prerequisite. From personal knowledge I don't think this is practiced at the moment. Don't see why jurors of any age should be excluded, provided they are competent, and fit enough to attend.
Having served on two juries in the past, I lost my confidence with the jury system. I still feel I cannot give details about the specific cases; enough to say that most of the people I was with thought it was like "Perry Mason".That the barristers had personally been involved in the case, and that the evidence being given had to be proved to the last iota. They couldn't understand that proof was often a balance of probabilities, that they had to decide upon.
One person was found not guilty, and from the look on his face he couldn't believe it either.I could have been in the jury room all week and would have made no difference, so I went along with the majority, to have stuck it out for a few hours until the judge would have accepted a majority verdict, would not have affected the outcome.The other person was found guilty, after I had proven that he could have been guilty, and on balance was. Logic prevailed and the "TV crime series" followers came onboard.I found the whole experience to be very "hit and miss"and was not very satisfied with the jury system at all. It may be different with a group of different people, which again is not reassuring.
A previous time many years ago, when we were converted from towns gas to natural gas, (The relevance of this is not only to give a time line, but also to indicate that the case was involving the theft of gas jets) Was different, in as much as the judge told the jury that the man was not to be found guilty. He had been charged with the wrong offence. However he would, we were told, be up before him again and would doubtless be imprisoned.