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

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.

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 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?".

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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.