Jury Duty

Forums › Off topic › Jury Duty

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11

networkn

18916 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5459

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1960043 18-Feb-2018 19:45

7 people support this post

dejadeadnz:

Plenty of good reasons, if you would just engage the mind a bit and consider the facts, rather than just attacking these people right away.

--Snip--

Free hint: these important issues and policies are mostly reasonably well thought-through and most common law countries apply similar rules. You're unlikely to be so clever that you've come upon some hitherto unknown great reason(s) that demonstrate their utter moral bankruptcy. So before spouting off next time, can I heartily suggest thinking through the issues a bit harder. Or, better yet, refrain from commenting from a position of ignorance?

Why do you almost always create these replies imparting your knowledge or experience, in such a rude and disrespectful way? Even if you strongly disagree, or the person is entirely wrong, you carrying on this way simply isn't necessary. It lowers the tone of the thread and likely causes people to disengage.

There is no way in real life you would get away with speaking to people this way, why do you feel it appropriate to do so here?

Surely it's possible to provide your perspective knowledge or experience without resorting to belittling/berating or otherwise eviscerating the other person.

This was the type of question I would imagine comes up a lot in the context of jury exclusions, they aren't unreasonable questions and simply presenting the facts without everything else would have been just as productive?

networkn

18916 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5459

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1960045 18-Feb-2018 20:07

In the case of a lawyer, they are at all times officers of the court owing duties to the court to alert it to things such as procedural impropriety and so forth, yet under the law jury deliberation is also absolutely sacrosanct and cannot be disclosed outside of the deliberation room. This is an impossible ethical conflict for a lawyer to manage.

Dejadeadnz. I was not aware of an Officer of the courts' ever-present responsibility to alert the court of procedural impropriety. I would imagine the average punter, even a smart one, also doesn't know of this. Given that, I don't think a question to as why a Lawyer or Judge couldn't serve on a jury is unreasonable.

Does this mean, that if a judge or lawyer is sitting in another courtroom to kill some time before their own hearing, and hears the judge incorrectly define something for a jury, they are legally compelled to report this? I wonder how often it happens?

I'd be interested to know if once you pass the bar, are you forever required to meet this responsibility even if you aren't practicing, or have changed profession or have been disbarred? IE are ex-lawyers allowed to serve on juries in NZ? I ask out of genuine interest.

blackjack17

792 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 192

Reply # 1960064 18-Feb-2018 20:53

networkn:

In the case of a lawyer, they are at all times officers of the court owing duties to the court to alert it to things such as procedural impropriety and so forth, yet under the law jury deliberation is also absolutely sacrosanct and cannot be disclosed outside of the deliberation room. This is an impossible ethical conflict for a lawyer to manage.

Dejadeadnz. I was not aware of an Officer of the courts' ever-present responsibility to alert the court of procedural impropriety. I would imagine the average punter, even a smart one, also doesn't know of this. Given that, I don't think a question to as why a Lawyer or Judge couldn't serve on a jury is unreasonable.

Does this mean, that if a judge or lawyer is sitting in another courtroom to kill some time before their own hearing, and hears the judge incorrectly define something for a jury, they are legally compelled to report this? I wonder how often it happens?

I'd be interested to know if once you pass the bar, are you forever required to meet this responsibility even if you aren't practicing, or have changed profession or have been disbarred? IE are ex-lawyers allowed to serve on juries in NZ? I ask out of genuine interest.

My wife after passing the bar but not employed as a lawyer had to serve on a jury. After asking her thoughts on this matter it was she felt that if the rest of the jury found out you were a practicing lawyer you could stay the rest of the jury.

dejadeadnz

1353 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1050

Subscriber

Reply # 1960065 18-Feb-2018 21:20

2 people support this post

JimmyH:

Can you imagine, for example, Judge A from the High Court being able to faithfully follow District Court Judge B's direction of what constitutes rape when Judge A is convinced that the direction is wrong?

Yes. Just as I can imagine another juror failing to follow a judges direction if they were convinced it was wrong. Or a juror deciding on other then the basis of the evidence or expert testimony presented if they thought that was wrong too (eg a geneticist in a criminal trial involving DNA, an accountant in a fraud trial involving forensic accounting). It happens now.

Nice case of wilful ignorance. There's a difference between a random moron deciding to ignore a judge's direction and, say, go out and do their own research outside of the court's evidence etc. You might say that's just part of the cost of having jury trials. But for anyone who knows anything about the legal system and how lawyers work would know that lawyers intensely debate with one another over what the law is/should be, the risk of having a lawyer NOT respecting the rules of role differentiation is infinitely greater. All for what? To satisfy your unwarranted soupboxing over the supposed hypocrisy of lawyers and judges not serving on juries?

And I haven't even referred to how such people will unduly sway others in the jury. Oh wait, I actually did in previous postts.

JimmyH:

I can see a case for a Minister being excluded, but not a strong case for a backbench MP.

What an amazing argument. I bow to your unlimited wisdom.

networkn:

There is no way in real life you would get away with speaking to people this way, why do you feel it appropriate to do so here?

My strongly worded replies on here follow a distinct pattern. I am not arguing one way or another for whether my way is doing it is justified or not (I do however respect the site owner's property right to allow whatever he pleases on here) but in general, I refrain from posting on things that I don't at least know something about and also have a record of being exceedingly nice and helpful to people using my skills, even when there's absolutely nothing in it for me.

What particularly gets my goat is when people strongly assert positions over things that I know something about from a position of utter ignorance and in their assertions begin to impugn the integrity and decency of others (like JimmyH's rather unjustified impugning of lawyers, judges and politicians as utter hypocrites on the original issue). As for whether this is the way I talk to people in real life, let's just say people that I work with know full well that if they deliver such similar nonsense, I will be equally unsparing. In any event, I could frankly sugarcoat my argument with rubbish phrases like "With all due respect" (hint: this is basically a lawyer's code for "You're an idiot!") but if I justifiably have no time of the day for an argument, I have no time of the day for it. The faking wouldn't fool anyone who's paying attention.If you have a problem with my posting style, either address it with the admins or just mind your own business since I don't exist to please you.

MikeAqua

5369 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2195

Reply # 1960222 19-Feb-2018 11:04

One person supports this post

Based on a read of the juries act it seem that if you live more than 45km from the nearest "court town", you will not be on any jury list.

So there you go ... live in the sticks and avoid jury service - watching Netflix could be problematic though.

Mike

BlueShift

1403 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 596

Reply # 1960236 19-Feb-2018 11:17

tdgeek:
BlueShift:

matabo:

I noticed when I was "challenged " I still got paid by the courts for attending.

Yes they do pay for the part of the day it takes to either not get picked, or get challenged and released.

The geek in me always spends the first part of jury service gritting my teeth at how slow and inefficient the selection process is. I mean, roll calls and picking names from a hat is ridiculous. If they sent a barcode with the jury summons, scanned you in when you arrive, manually enter the 20% who forget their paperwork, then push a button to randomly select 40 people, call their names out. They'd have their jury pools sorted by 9:30 and everyone else could go home. The defense and prosecution would have the list at hand before the pool entered the courtroom, then another button push, and 12 names called out for possible challenge, fill in the gaps, done. Everyone else is back at work before morning smoko. Then the court can automatically send a fine to everyone that didn't turn up.

Well not every one is a geek who marries their phone and has 300 apps at their disposal

Have you been talking with my wife?

But none of the above involves anyone owning a phone. Its still paper-based and only a tiny tweak to the existing system. The only additional tech it would involve is barcode scanners, which are hardly bleeding-edge.

networkn

18916 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5459

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1960512 19-Feb-2018 18:32

5 people support this post

What particularly gets my goat is when people strongly assert positions over things that I know something about from a position of utter ignorance and in their assertions begin to impugn the integrity and decency of others (like JimmyH's rather unjustified impugning of lawyers, judges and politicians as utter hypocrites on the original issue). As for whether this is the way I talk to people in real life, let's just say people that I work with know full well that if they deliver such similar nonsense, I will be equally unsparing. In any event, I could frankly sugarcoat my argument with rubbish phrases like "With all due respect" (hint: this is basically a lawyer's code for "You're an idiot!") but if I justifiably have no time of the day for an argument, I have no time of the day for it. The faking wouldn't fool anyone who's paying attention.If you have a problem with my posting style, either address it with the admins or just mind your own business since I don't exist to please you.

Your strongly worded replies here are in my opinion, well in excess of what is required to simply get your point across. It's nonsense to suggest you couldn't make your point without the sarcasm and nasty tone (since it's obvious you are intelligent and able) and is much more likely to be a way for you vent other frustrations.

As for your suggestion of the admins or mind my own business, actioned, but since this is a public forum (and a thread I specifically started), I believe it not unreasonable to politely and constructively suggest a less aggressive way to communicate for the benefit of the community in general.

dejadeadnz

1353 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1050

Subscriber

Reply # 1960544 19-Feb-2018 19:35

2 people support this post

networkn:

Your strongly worded replies here are in my opinion, well in excess of what is required to simply get your point across. It's nonsense to suggest you couldn't make your point without the sarcasm and nasty tone (since it's obvious you are intelligent and able) and is much more likely to be a way for you vent other frustrations.

Are you now a psychologist as well? My frustration is plain and simple: this is a high-traffic website and whether people like it or not for a lot of people, if it's on the internet, it takes on an element of credibility. The sorts of matters on which the same few people consistently assert extraordinarily strong positions (usually without one shred of evidence) are actually quite serious and specialised issues. No one here appears to presume it okay to randomly pronounce upon economic theory or the effectiveness of medicines. In the same vain, demonstrating just 1/10th of that level of restraint over matters to do with the justice and legal system, over which most people know absolutely nothing, would frankly eliminate a lot of noise and pointless ranting.

[Mod edit MF]

gehenna

5245 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1322

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1960551 19-Feb-2018 19:49

5 people support this post

OK team, just agree to disagree now and move on please.

networkn

18916 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5459

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1960600 19-Feb-2018 20:54

2 people support this post

While I am obviously biased in this position, I feel that allowing for staff working for companies with less than 10 people, to write in and be excused from duty easily wouldn't be an unreasonable change. Small companies are likely to feel the impact of a single staff member much more than a company with 100 staff.

BTR

1495 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 450

Reply # 1960896 20-Feb-2018 12:03

One person supports this post

Jury duty is a joke forcing mostly law abiding citizens to take time off work and penalise them financially....... Why not have a jury of lawyers, someone who is actually interested in the profession.

JimmyH

2598 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1262

Reply # 1960936 20-Feb-2018 13:11

5 people support this post

dejadeadnz:

Free hint: these important issues and policies are mostly reasonably well thought-through and most common law countries apply similar rules. You're unlikely to be so clever that you've come upon some hitherto unknown great reason(s) that demonstrate their utter moral bankruptcy. So before spouting off next time, can I heartily suggest thinking through the issues a bit harder. Or, better yet, refrain from commenting from a position of ignorance?

This will be my last post on this subject as, to be frank, your posts are becoming a bit over the top and I prefer more civil discussion.

As for ignorance, perhaps you also think that the British Lord Chief Justice (Lord Woolf) was also spouting from a position of legal ignorance on the subject? Because in 2004 he told judges that they must do their duty if called for jury duty. As was that other great legal ignoramus the Recorder of London (Judge Michael Hyam) who rejected a QC's application to excuse him from jury duty.

Then of course there is the UK Parliament who clearly didn't consult you before lifting the exemption that police officers, judges, lawyers, doctors and clergy used to have from jury duty. Link to reportage can be found here.

Perhaps you should do your duty and set all these buffoons who clearly failed to think through the important issues before commenting from a position of ignorance straight while you are at it?

dejadeadnz

1353 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1050

Subscriber

Reply # 1961213 20-Feb-2018 19:47

Now you're just plain twisting my words.

You even quoted my own post saying that I did say "most" common law jurisdictions apply similar rules to NZ. I didn't assert that every single one of them do; nor does my original position require me to believe that anyone called upon to serve in the circumstances of the UK law is justified in "dodging" the duty. But the important policy issues that led to NZ adopting its position are indisputable. The fact that another country went another way does not of itself settle matters.

But more importantly, what I always objected to was your attack on lawyers, judges and politicians as hypocrites for apparently rigging the system so that they can dodge jury duty. This is a point that you have consistently avoided responding to -- gee, I wonder why. Many issues arise out of your comment: (1) judges and lawyers don't make laws; parliamentarians do; (2) just because you disagree with the policy decision that Parliament reached, it doesn't mean these people concerned are hypocrites; and (3) coming in as a non-lawyer and non-subject matter expert, you're just not likely to be able to sensibly critique the policy decision reached apart from simply, as I described, strongly asserting a view without providing a shred of evidence.

The fact of the matter is the Juries Act has been reviewed by the Law Commission and undoubtedly they've considered all relevant issues that have arisen. All the relevant loops have been closed and you should just respect the system and stop calling people out unjustly.

dejadeadnz

1353 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1050

Subscriber

Reply # 1961214 20-Feb-2018 19:53

And look what a quick Google found for me:

An article on why the Western Australian Law Reform Commission rejected allowing lawyers to serve on juries

"The commission determined that, on balance, the risk of prejudice to an accused by -- allowing lawyers to serve as jurors -- was too high," the commission said.

"Because juries are not required to give reasons and cannot speak publicly about their participation in a particular trial, it is impossible to know whether a jury has been unduly influenced by an interpretation of the law provided by a lawyer-juror."

Exactly a point that I raised earlier. The point of this exercise isn't to say who's right or wrong; the point is that unless you grasp the intricacies of these issues, it's better that you don't comment. Just appealing to authority or showing that another society made an opposite policy decision doesn't defeat your interlocutor's point. And JimmyH, here's another legal theory 101 for you: telling someone that a Judge told people that he will obey the law really doesn't tell any informed person much. Any judge worth his/her salt obeys the law. We are debating the underlying reasons/policies behind the law.

rugrat

1471 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 249

Reply # 1964648 26-Feb-2018 16:42

One person supports this post

Yay, I've got out of Jury service, and been discharged. Have one happy employer.

Looks like crap is going down in the new Justice building in Christchurch.

Sewage leak

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11