Jury service

It is fair because one of the rights of a citizen is to be tried by their peers. Not the House of Lords peers (when they are not occupied with Stephen Fry) but their equals, ie others of eqal standing in the community. If it were only those who volunteered, it would not be a representative sample of the population - those who had a particular interest in trials, from one side or the other.

If you could opt out of this obligation, what proportion of the population would be left to select from? And if this were only a small proportion, how often would the ones who were left have to serve? I suspect that a lot of people would opt out. Of those who were left, some might have voyeuristic motives.

Why is it fair? Why should anyone have to do this one thing when there are other things you might consider a civic duty (like giving blood or donating organs) that aren't obligatory?

I'm with those who feel we all have a civic duty, if called to do jury service. I have a bit of experience of the criminal courts and more of the family courts over 33 years of working for probation/children's services. To generalise, I've been impressed by the way our court systems work for most cases. We don't have national service of any kind, and so far as I know, jury service is the only thing we can't be excused from without very good reason. That seems fair to me.

I thought of that but I'd be lying. I'm just indignant...

On the practical note, you could try going to your doctor and telling him this is really stressing you out and that you just don't think you can do it. Perhaps say you are laying awake nights worrying about it. You might be able to get out of it like that.

I would have the right to be a conscientious objector if I had been called to arms in the last war so why can't I object to being on a jury? There are plenty of other people to chose from... I'm not obliged to vote, I can abstain. Why can't I abstain from sitting on a jury?

I was never called to serve - my younger brother has been a juror a couple of times. He was jury foreman on at least one of those occasions.

My mother was called once, but excused as my father was a member of the Met.

I was on a jury in a murder case. Twenty-four of us were herded into court to be inspected by the judge, barristers and accused man. The judge asked several questions such as did any of us have a holiday booked within the next four weeks, were any of us related to or friendly with police officers (I kid you not) etc. The accused was allowed to pick out anyone he didn't like the look of and they got it down to twelve. Obviously he didn't mind the look of me as I was accepted though I'm not sure that was a compliment.

The trial went on for almost six weeks which was a pain because I lost a holiday but I did get the cost refunded on insurance. We deliberated long and hard but we did find him guilty and I haven't lost any sleep over the decision. You have to go with what you feel is right and not be influenced by anyone else. We were certainly a mixed bunch and the discussions were fascinating. I gained immense respect for the judge involved and he was extremely helpful in guiding us.

Who can serve on a jury

Criminal trials

To be qualified to serve on a jury for a criminal case you must:-
•be 18 years of age or older
•be on the electoral register
•have lived in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man for a period of at least five years since the age of 13
•not be on the list of people on the Notice to Potential Jurors who are either disqualified or ineligible. The list of disqualified or ineligible people includes staff of the court service and police and anyone with a criminal conviction which is not yet spent.

There is no upper age limit for serving on a jury for a criminal case, but you can be excused from jury service if you are 71 years of age or older and you do not want to serve on a jury.

I found the above on the CAB website.

absent, Your reply was blunt and rather rude. I don't want to get into an argument so, if challenged, I will leave the thread but there are always more jurors called than needed for the first case of the week. You are herded into a room and it's a while before names are called out for the first case. The jury I sat on was a balanced mix of professional and working people. I was not the only one who wondered about the 'randomness' of selection.

#ofcourseit'srandom

I have been a juror. It was a fairly low level case and I was the chair of the group. We found the young man not guilty. It was quite boring for a day or two as we all sat around waiting to be allocated a case. I believe it is a citizen's responsibility. We take our legal 'rights' so the payback is to accept the responsibility of being called for jury service. Reduces the possibility of corruption of judges etc which I think can happen elsewhere where juries don't exist.

I didn't realise until the Oscar pistorious trial that South Africa don't have a jury system. Barry Bateman one of the leading journalists that covered the trial for newspapers and for tv (as well as on twitter) said he thought it was the fairest to have an experienced judge decide matters rather than just members of the public.

I wonder what else I'm officially too old to do. Hoovering? Washing up?

Hmmm.....#foodforthought

Jingle, cynic that I am about all shades of government, even I don't think that people are called for jury sevice for anything other than the fact that their name comes up.

They probably take career qualifications into account. My 60 wpm typing obviously didn't do it for them.

Good good good.

absent do you really think the "powers that be" haven't got all kinds of information on every one of us?

I think it would depend on the case, Granny23. If it was about 'white collar' crime, such as fraud, they might want people who looked middle class.
My daughter had to serve on a jury in New Zealand within months of arriving there and before they had their 'indefinite' visas, which surprised her.
I agree that the very randomness of the system is the best safeguard.
In the O.J. Simpson case in the US, the defence team were able to ensure an all black jury, who acquitted in spite of overwhelming evidence of guilt.

When I was called for Jury Service a friend advised me to dress posh and business like which I did. Result - when the defence were accepting or rejecting potential jurors, they took one look at me and shook their heads. By the time I was dismissed and downstairs collecting my expenses, the jurors who had been selected all came trooping in. The case had been dismissed because the charge sheet said Cannabis Resin and the drugs found on the accused were apparently Cannabis Something Else. I was back at work by lunchtime.

merlotgran How do you imagine they take a look at the candidates? And what criteria could they (whoever they are) possibly use to justify such an action? Of course it's random.

J08 I think you're too old now. For jury service, that is.

So what does that say about the fact that I've never been called?!!!

I think so.

Names are supposed to be drawn randomly, jingle I wonder if they take a look at the candidates and do a bit of shuffling though.

I would so hate it. I think they must choose fairly carefully come to think of it. They never asked me.

True.

I'm still not at all sure about juries though. I hope enough thought goes into picking them. Not just a list and a pin.