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

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?

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?

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

Aka!

(Don't joke about stuff like that!)

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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 have owned up to slowly losing my marbles!

Definitely!

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!

Would we be able to ask them to stop mumbling?

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

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'

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 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..

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 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 !

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.

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.

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.

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.