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

I think that over say 75, there should be the option to opt out. And I'm sure if someone isn't competent it'd get picked up on pretty quick and they just be rejected - as happens now across the present age range.

I know kitty I suppose I was just thinking that in an ideal word it ought to be possible to opt out on medical grounds (which may be age related) rather than grounds of age alone. Had a nightmare week at work, not thinking or expressing myself very coherently I'm afraid. Need to sleep ......

The worrying thing Nightowl is that, unless you have a really good reason, it isn't possible to opt out of Jury Service.

When an aged relative's dangerous driving led to a serious accident and his licence being taken away he was sure he was a victim of ageism.

Elderly people aren't always the best judges of their own competence.

Elegran That was when gas appliances needed changes to operate with natural gas – the same time that Mrs Thatcher sold off the North Sea gas fields for a mess of potage.

Yes nightowl- says it all

Shouldn't we be opposing ageism in all it's forms rather than inviting it? I want to be able to decide for myself that I am too old/ infirm/ frail to carry out activities such as sitting on a jury, not be ruled out on the basis of my year of birth.

No, deserving I don't remember anyone coming round to change my gas jets (or even nipples!) At 74 I must be just a young whippersnapper.

I wonder how many of us do remember that?

You"re are not , are you DES?

75 & another lump on that

I was a juror in my middle sixties.

It was exciting. But it was also boring, stressful and upsetting.

It meant getting up early and driving through heavy traffic and then trying to find a parking space in a town which doesn't have very many. Then back through heavy traffic at the end of the day. This went on for two weeks, could have been longer.

There was an emotional strain felt by all of us I think. This was expressed by childish behaviour and slightly manic joking when we were closeted in a room trying to decide on guilty/not guilty.

The case was an accusation of inappropriate behaviour by a grandfather towards his young grandchildren. The whole family was in a dreadful state. So we were all drained and upset at the end. You can't help wondering if you reached the right decision or not.

So, I'm sure some 75 year olds would be able to stand all that but many would not yet they might be forced into the situation if there was not sufficient reason for them to be excused.

I was thinking about this topic whilst I was out today and I realised I would be happy to have any of the people I 'know' on GN on a jury in a case where I was the defendant but I don't think we are typical of our age group. In fact, how many of us are 75?

Realise I said "gas jets", meant nipples, the small brass screw in thing's that let the gas out and have to be of a particular size to ensure the gas burns effectively and safely.The defendant had stolen thousands of them and taken them to a scrap yard.
You may remember chaps coming around changing these things on your stoves, fires etc, and burning off the residual town gas using standpipes, usually at the ends of the streets.

I agree, Jack. I have said in an earlier post that stamina might be an issue but I also think emotional strain needs to be considered.

Having spent most of a long day listening, concentrating, note taking, etc., you get home and it's like a normal day after work - cooking a meal, walking the dog, except the adrenalin takes a while to calm down and of course you can't discuss any of it with anyone. The case I was on involved a child witness to a crime of GBH. I was glad that DH was working away so I could just eat a quick supper, have a glass of wine and go to bed early.

Fortunately the case did not drag on but I think I would have been wiped out by it if I were in my seventies.

My experience of being a juror was that it was quite exhausting as you have to listen very intently to all the evidence and arguement. However I did find that our background knowledge both for myself and my fellow jurors some what lacking. Some of the evidence shown to us was not understood by us. This became clear when we discussed where we had reached with the case in the jury room long before we retired to reach a verdict. It happened to be a particulay complex case and I think in this instance the younger jurors understood better than us who were bit older. There is also the issue of time. Some cases are quite short others can take weeks. On balance I believe we golden oldies are best left out of this one.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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

Or judges or judicial members.

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?

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

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.

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