Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
Circumspice
516 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 119

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1956066 12-Feb-2018 23:41
Send private message

re disproportionate representation on juries...

 

Last year I got off after 'personal circumstances' excuse (with evidence = international flight bookings with receipt). 2-3x previously got off with letters from employers.

 

I'm obviously grateful to not have to do jury duty, but reinforced the notion that having a job and money for overseas trip reduced my probability of having to turn up.




18735 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5370

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1956068 12-Feb-2018 23:44
Send private message

For the record, had my person been selected for a trial lasting a week or less, it would not have been anywhere near as a significant issue. 

 

I support the requirement for Jury duty. 

 

 


 
 
 
 


14447 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1898


  Reply # 1956092 13-Feb-2018 01:48
Send private message

wsnz:

 

mattwnz:

 

I think they should make more use of retired people of jury duty. It should solve the problem of people not being able to do it due to other commitments associated with life in 2018. especially as many younger people these days have huge mortgages for overpriced houses, so can't afford the time off. Older people have far more life experience, and can also have far more common sense.

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately that skews the composition of the jury though. That's not something that will help contribute to a fair and just trial.

 

 

 

 

I am not so sure it would change things significantly, and potentially it could be the reverse, because as you get older, you learn to see things from different point of views. Everyone who is old for example was once young, so can potentially relate to more ages. It is also a lot better than not haven't enough jurors to do the trial.  You can also have trials that are decided solely by a judge, which I think is significantly less representative.


14447 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1898


  Reply # 1956093 13-Feb-2018 01:53
Send private message

dejadeadnz:

 

JimmyH:

 

Why? I would have thought that juries were a fairly basic right, and a key protection against oppressive or totalitarian governments. For example, faced with bad law (eg a huge penalty for giving food to the hungry child of a striking watersider in NZ) juries have been known to simply refuse to convict.

 

 

Hardly. Plenty of liberal, democratic countries with excellent record of human rights do not have right of trial by juries. Just look at most of continental Europe.

 

If the concern is for the getting to the truth and conclusions being reached through a careful and thorough examination of the evidence with as little reference to human prejudices as possible, why anyone would prefer a panel of jurors -- some of whom could be terribly uneducated and stupid -- as opposed to a panel of judges, is beyond me. The panel of judges would have (at a minimum) completed a tertiary degree and will be required to issue a written decision which will be closely examined for their statement of and application of the law and examination of evidence. This is opposed to a bunch of unaccountable jurors being able to just call out someone as guilty or not guilty without having to give any reasons. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly. I think it would be a good idea to have professional jurors, who are also well educated and have proven to have good common sense, but obviously they need to be reasonably paid.


Glurp
8684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3987

Subscriber

  Reply # 1956097 13-Feb-2018 06:09
3 people support this post
Send private message

dejadeadnz:

 

Hardly. Plenty of liberal, democratic countries with excellent record of human rights do not have right of trial by juries. Just look at most of continental Europe.

 

If the concern is for the getting to the truth and conclusions being reached through a careful and thorough examination of the evidence with as little reference to human prejudices as possible, why anyone would prefer a panel of jurors -- some of whom could be terribly uneducated and stupid -- as opposed to a panel of judges, is beyond me. The panel of judges would have (at a minimum) completed a tertiary degree and will be required to issue a written decision which will be closely examined for their statement of and application of the law and examination of evidence. This is opposed to a bunch of unaccountable jurors being able to just call out someone as guilty or not guilty without having to give any reasons. 

 

 

As an older person I have never been called up for jury duty, though I would have no objection to serving. I do not believe in the jury system, though. I come from one of those European countries that do not have juries at all and in my opinion it is a vastly superior system. When juries can be filled with religious fanatics and conspiracy theory nuts and all flavours of imbecility in-between, just give me a panel of professional judges any day.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


13577 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6362

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1956102 13-Feb-2018 06:57
Send private message

networkn:

MikeB4:


networkn:


MikeB4:


Both and neither had unlimited budgets



Well clearly, I need to put my prices up significantly.



 


Seriously though managing leave no matter what leave it is just part of effective management and you need to make opex allowances for it..  How many days have you had staff away on jury service in the last two years ?



It's hard for me to understand how you could have worked for a small private company and produce these views. 2 Weeks of a Key staff members salary is a significant hit, esp when that person may not be earning for the company in that time as well as not being able to deal with workloads. 


Maybe you have been fortunate to work with companies with huge revenue and profit margins but I'd suggest to you that the VAST majority of companies under 5 people in NZ would find this extremely challenging. 


It's easy to be flippant when it's not your money on the line. 


It won't break me, but it's extremely challenging. 14 weeks of a single day would be considerably less difficult to manage than 14 days consecutively. 


We have decided not to challenge it, I doubt we would have luck anyway now the jury is seated. Wouldn't be fair. I am hoping it's over quicker than two weeks. 


Personally, I think in companies with less than 10 people, there should be tolerance from the Government/Legal System.


 



I am not being flippant or in anyway trying to trivialize the matter but in simple terms it was my job to manage it and manage it I need to gain the best result for all concerned. It was pointless getting stressed over it as that would have changed nothing. No one said management is easy.




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


sxz

651 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 148


  Reply # 1956132 13-Feb-2018 08:59
Send private message

mattwnz:

 

dejadeadnz:

 

JimmyH:

 

Why? I would have thought that juries were a fairly basic right, and a key protection against oppressive or totalitarian governments. For example, faced with bad law (eg a huge penalty for giving food to the hungry child of a striking watersider in NZ) juries have been known to simply refuse to convict.

 

 

Hardly. Plenty of liberal, democratic countries with excellent record of human rights do not have right of trial by juries. Just look at most of continental Europe.

 

If the concern is for the getting to the truth and conclusions being reached through a careful and thorough examination of the evidence with as little reference to human prejudices as possible, why anyone would prefer a panel of jurors -- some of whom could be terribly uneducated and stupid -- as opposed to a panel of judges, is beyond me. The panel of judges would have (at a minimum) completed a tertiary degree and will be required to issue a written decision which will be closely examined for their statement of and application of the law and examination of evidence. This is opposed to a bunch of unaccountable jurors being able to just call out someone as guilty or not guilty without having to give any reasons. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly. I think it would be a good idea to have professional jurors, who are also well educated and have proven to have good common sense, but obviously they need to be reasonably paid.

 

 

So... a Judge?


706 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 256


  Reply # 1956138 13-Feb-2018 09:14
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

As an older person I have never been called up for jury duty, though I would have no objection to serving. I do not believe in the jury system, though. I come from one of those European countries that do not have juries at all and in my opinion it is a vastly superior system. When juries can be filled with religious fanatics and conspiracy theory nuts and all flavours of imbecility in-between, just give me a panel of professional judges any day.

 

 

I think the idea is that these people are 'your peers'. Therefore, if you live in a community of religious fanatics, conspiracy theory nuts and imbeciles that's who will sit on your trial.

 

You would think that if you live in a community of progressive, intelligent people they, in turn, would be on your trial but this kind of people know how to read the forms and write a letter to be excused so you'll be left with the elderly and the unemployed.

 

 

 

https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/judge-robs-jury-wasted-civic-duty-ns-127821

 

 

 

 


2523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 970

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1956164 13-Feb-2018 09:28
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

dejadeadnz:

 

Hardly. Plenty of liberal, democratic countries with excellent record of human rights do not have right of trial by juries. Just look at most of continental Europe.

 

If the concern is for the getting to the truth and conclusions being reached through a careful and thorough examination of the evidence with as little reference to human prejudices as possible, why anyone would prefer a panel of jurors -- some of whom could be terribly uneducated and stupid -- as opposed to a panel of judges, is beyond me. The panel of judges would have (at a minimum) completed a tertiary degree and will be required to issue a written decision which will be closely examined for their statement of and application of the law and examination of evidence. This is opposed to a bunch of unaccountable jurors being able to just call out someone as guilty or not guilty without having to give any reasons. 

 

 

As an older person I have never been called up for jury duty, though I would have no objection to serving. I do not believe in the jury system, though. I come from one of those European countries that do not have juries at all and in my opinion it is a vastly superior system. When juries can be filled with religious fanatics and conspiracy theory nuts and all flavours of imbecility in-between, just give me a panel of professional judges any day.

 

 

You only have to look at the Bain trial to see that the jury system is deeply, deeply flawed.

 

 




18735 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5370

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1956166 13-Feb-2018 09:30
Send private message

kryptonjohn:

 

Rikkitic:

 

dejadeadnz:

 

Hardly. Plenty of liberal, democratic countries with excellent record of human rights do not have right of trial by juries. Just look at most of continental Europe.

 

If the concern is for the getting to the truth and conclusions being reached through a careful and thorough examination of the evidence with as little reference to human prejudices as possible, why anyone would prefer a panel of jurors -- some of whom could be terribly uneducated and stupid -- as opposed to a panel of judges, is beyond me. The panel of judges would have (at a minimum) completed a tertiary degree and will be required to issue a written decision which will be closely examined for their statement of and application of the law and examination of evidence. This is opposed to a bunch of unaccountable jurors being able to just call out someone as guilty or not guilty without having to give any reasons. 

 

 

As an older person I have never been called up for jury duty, though I would have no objection to serving. I do not believe in the jury system, though. I come from one of those European countries that do not have juries at all and in my opinion it is a vastly superior system. When juries can be filled with religious fanatics and conspiracy theory nuts and all flavours of imbecility in-between, just give me a panel of professional judges any day.

 

 

You only have to look at the Bain trial to see that the jury system is deeply, deeply flawed.

 

 

 

 

OMG yes. 

 

 


2598 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 363


  Reply # 1956169 13-Feb-2018 09:36
Send private message

Rikkitic: When juries can be filled with religious fanatics and conspiracy theory nuts and all flavours of imbecility in-between, just give me a panel of professional judges any day.


That depends on how much influence the religious fanatics and conspiracy theory nuts and all flavours of imbecility in-betweens have in deciding the members of this panel. Judges are human and have their own prejudices as can be seen in the US Supreme Court.

I've been on 1 jury trial. It was an education. After a day of evidence about half the jury were prepared to convict because the Police wouldn't have arrested the accused unless he was guilty. Luckily for the rest of us he incriminated himself in court.

5287 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2145


  Reply # 1956172 13-Feb-2018 09:40
4 people support this post
Send private message

My employment agreement is silent on the matter of payment for jury service.  My employer could choose not to pay me.

 

I would be OK for a week or two but it would still hurt.  After that things would get very tight.

 

I don't see why people should have to reduce their equity for jury service, or use up their annual leave, all for the privilege of sitting on an uncomfortable chair and listening to suits drone on for hours.  Or worse being traumatised by photos of some hideous crime scene or details or some hideous act.  IMO jury service is as out of date as compulsory military service

 

If we must have juries (I don't favour the system personally), the govt should pay people for their lost income.  Not employers, the govt.





Mike

Glurp
8684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3987

Subscriber

  Reply # 1956178 13-Feb-2018 09:54
One person supports this post
Send private message

elpenguino:

 

I think the idea is that these people are 'your peers'. Therefore, if you live in a community of religious fanatics, conspiracy theory nuts and imbeciles that's who will sit on your trial.

 

 

Everyone thinks I'm weird so I have no peers. Geekzoners ought to be able to relate to that.

 

Of course even judges will have prejudices and personal flaws. But professionalism tends to weed out the worst excesses. I would far rather have a panel of judges (not just a single one) who want to get at the truth, not simply win some primitive gladiatorial contest. The inquisitorial system of justice is far, far better than what we have inherited from dear old mother England.

 

 

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


34 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 1


  Reply # 1956289 13-Feb-2018 12:17
Send private message

I was:"challenged " just as my name was called , wouldn't have a clue what the reason was......... rather pleased, it was going to be a 2 day plus trial.


2523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 970

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1956292 13-Feb-2018 12:21
One person supports this post
Send private message

matabo:

 

I was:"challenged " just as my name was called , wouldn't have a clue what the reason was......... rather pleased, it was going to be a 2 day plus trial.

 

 

Maybe it was the "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" tee shirt?

 

 


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.