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
14280 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1848


  Reply # 1956699 14-Feb-2018 01:58
Send private message

Oldmanakbar: They don't ask questions. Your name is called from the front of the room to sit in the chair, you start walking. The lawyers look at you and say "challenge" and thats it. They don't have to give a reason. It is a bit of a farce given how many challenges they get each. For my one in the end it was a four day trial, total waste of everyone's time, as the person who was the victim obviously didn't even want to be there and the defense had already worked out a bargain. But we still had to deliberate on the last charge. 12 Jurors, 8 of us followed the judges instruction. They give you a flow chart basically. We then spent 6 hours convincing the other 4 that just because "he looks like he is a bit of a dick" is not a reason to send someone to prison for 5 years. I wouldn't want to do it again. No one wanted to be there.

 

 

 

Interesting. So it sounds like that basically  judge you solely on your appearance. Even though that is always something that we are always told that we shouldn't do. My dad once got called up, he wore a suit and looked very professional, and he didn't get picked, and he probably needed to dress down. He said he wants to go on one of these big trials, but he will probably never get the opportunity. My grandma was 80+ with dementia got called up, and I don't think they allow people that old, or people can be excused over a certain age. So it  ended up being a waste of money for the tax payer even calling her up.


474 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 296


  Reply # 1956772 14-Feb-2018 09:32
Send private message

rugrat: The form I've got says

" If you do not show up for jury service, or you refuse or neglect to serve on a jury, you may be fined up to $1000 under the Juries Act 1981, or you may be arrested and taken to court for jury service."

So they can arrest you and throw you onto the Jury, seems they don't care how deciatated someone is, just they've got them there occupying a space.

My employer is not happy, and I don't have a clue what I'm doing, just got to go with flow.

 

 

 

It's easy. Start with being asleep when they call your name for the challenge process. Then keep falling asleep.

 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/3304887/Juror-discharged-after-falling-asleep


4952 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2011


  Reply # 1957047 14-Feb-2018 13:18
One person supports this post
Send private message

So the $1,000 fine is if you fail  to attend when summoned to serve as a juror.  So it could be $1,000 each time you are summoned. The act doesn't say per day or anything like that.  So it's potentially $1,000 per summon and perhaps if the court repeatedly issues summons to you, you could be fined multiple times.

 

A fine can only be imposed after the court has told you they intend to fine you and given you a reasonable chance to explain your absence.

 

They use snail-mail so a % of summons will go missing.  Last figures I saw suggested about 1,000 items are lost every week by the snails.

 

 

 

 

 

 





Mike

93 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 54


  Reply # 1957050 14-Feb-2018 13:20
One person supports this post
Send private message

There is a somewhat relevant video from CGP Grey on the topic of jury nullification.

Glurp
7990 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3716

Subscriber

  Reply # 1957057 14-Feb-2018 13:40
Send private message

Neat video. And another excellent reason why juries shouldn't exist in the first place.

 

 





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


11831 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3836

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1957060 14-Feb-2018 13:50
One person supports this post
Send private message

mattwnz:

Oldmanakbar: They don't ask questions. Your name is called from the front of the room to sit in the chair, you start walking. The lawyers look at you and say "challenge" and thats it. They don't have to give a reason. It is a bit of a farce given how many challenges they get each. For my one in the end it was a four day trial, total waste of everyone's time, as the person who was the victim obviously didn't even want to be there and the defense had already worked out a bargain. But we still had to deliberate on the last charge. 12 Jurors, 8 of us followed the judges instruction. They give you a flow chart basically. We then spent 6 hours convincing the other 4 that just because "he looks like he is a bit of a dick" is not a reason to send someone to prison for 5 years. I wouldn't want to do it again. No one wanted to be there.


 


Interesting. So it sounds like that basically  judge you solely on your appearance. Even though that is always something that we are always told that we shouldn't do. My dad once got called up, he wore a suit and looked very professional, and he didn't get picked, and he probably needed to dress down. He said he wants to go on one of these big trials, but he will probably never get the opportunity. My grandma was 80+ with dementia got called up, and I don't think they allow people that old, or people can be excused over a certain age. So it  ended up being a waste of money for the tax payer even calling her up.



I'll dust off my Saville Row suit and Fedora, take a chauffeur driven Bentley to court, walk in and say loudly in my best BBC circa 1955 accent "Can we hurry along and convict these bogan gypsy types? I have lunch at my Club at 1.”

That should do it!







17958 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5171

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1957062 14-Feb-2018 13:54
Send private message

Geektastic:
mattwnz:

 

Oldmanakbar: They don't ask questions. Your name is called from the front of the room to sit in the chair, you start walking. The lawyers look at you and say "challenge" and thats it. They don't have to give a reason. It is a bit of a farce given how many challenges they get each. For my one in the end it was a four day trial, total waste of everyone's time, as the person who was the victim obviously didn't even want to be there and the defense had already worked out a bargain. But we still had to deliberate on the last charge. 12 Jurors, 8 of us followed the judges instruction. They give you a flow chart basically. We then spent 6 hours convincing the other 4 that just because "he looks like he is a bit of a dick" is not a reason to send someone to prison for 5 years. I wouldn't want to do it again. No one wanted to be there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting. So it sounds like that basically  judge you solely on your appearance. Even though that is always something that we are always told that we shouldn't do. My dad once got called up, he wore a suit and looked very professional, and he didn't get picked, and he probably needed to dress down. He said he wants to go on one of these big trials, but he will probably never get the opportunity. My grandma was 80+ with dementia got called up, and I don't think they allow people that old, or people can be excused over a certain age. So it  ended up being a waste of money for the tax payer even calling her up.

 



I'll dust off my Saville Row suit and Fedora, take a chauffeur driven Bentley to court, walk in and say loudly in my best BBC circa 1955 accent "Can we hurry along and convict these bogan gypsy types? I have lunch at my Club at 1.”

That should do it!

 

You will find yourself being told off by the judge, and likely held in contempt. Fines for this vary, but you'd likely be fined, and recycled back into the general pool.

 

The thing is, defense and prosecution probably want opposite things in a Juror, so if you are at the extremes you may end up being included regardless. 

 

 




17958 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5171

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1957064 14-Feb-2018 13:58
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

Neat video. And another excellent reason why juries shouldn't exist in the first place.

 

 

 

 

Ok, well I do understand what you are saying and why, but the alternatives are having 3 suitably qualified judges presiding over each trial seems pretty challenging as well. We would have to potentially quadruple our judge count, and the chances of doing this on short order is very low, and potentially causes issues with the quality of judges. I guess having 3 would somewhat resolve any slackers etc.. 

 

 


1387 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 580


  Reply # 1957084 14-Feb-2018 14:17
Send private message

networkn:

 

Rikkitic:

 

Neat video. And another excellent reason why juries shouldn't exist in the first place.

 

 

 

 

Ok, well I do understand what you are saying and why, but the alternatives are having 3 suitably qualified judges presiding over each trial seems pretty challenging as well. We would have to potentially quadruple our judge count, and the chances of doing this on short order is very low, and potentially causes issues with the quality of judges. I guess having 3 would somewhat resolve any slackers etc.. 

 

 

OTOH, trials will be shorter without the necessity of dumbing everything down so juries can follow it, and three judges deliberating will take less time than 12 laypeople. They will be able to fit more trials in a week, as the first two - three hours of every trial won't be wasted with Jury selection.

 

So, maybe only twice as many judges.


Glurp
7990 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3716

Subscriber

  Reply # 1957086 14-Feb-2018 14:17
Send private message

networkn:

 

Ok, well I do understand what you are saying and why, but the alternatives are having 3 suitably qualified judges presiding over each trial seems pretty challenging as well. We would have to potentially quadruple our judge count, and the chances of doing this on short order is very low, and potentially causes issues with the quality of judges. I guess having 3 would somewhat resolve any slackers etc.. 

 

 

 

 

I take your point, but we could still start moving in that direction. We already have judge-only trials. Maybe there is a reasonable way to gradually move to two-judge trials, then three. The defendant might have to agree, at least initially, and maybe additional safeguards would have to be built into the appeals process, but it shouldn't be impossible. I think three inquisitorial judges should be the goal, as this number seems to provide the best assurance of fairness and professionalism.

 

 





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


168 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 28


  Reply # 1957088 14-Feb-2018 14:20
Send private message

A colleague had a theory that the best way to avoid selection was to either dress really formally (and get immediately challenged by the defence) or super scruffy (and be challenged by the prosecution) ... 




17958 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5171

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1957090 14-Feb-2018 14:23
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

networkn:

 

Ok, well I do understand what you are saying and why, but the alternatives are having 3 suitably qualified judges presiding over each trial seems pretty challenging as well. We would have to potentially quadruple our judge count, and the chances of doing this on short order is very low, and potentially causes issues with the quality of judges. I guess having 3 would somewhat resolve any slackers etc.. 

 

 

 

 

I take your point, but we could still start moving in that direction. We already have judge-only trials. Maybe there is a reasonable way to gradually move to two-judge trials, then three. The defendant might have to agree, at least initially, and maybe additional safeguards would have to be built into the appeals process, but it shouldn't be impossible. I think three inquisitorial judges should be the goal, as this number seems to provide the best assurance of fairness and professionalism.

 

 

 

 

I don't think 2 is an option. what if they disagree?

 

I have seen jury situations (not in NZ but unsure if they exist) where the jury has come back with a verdict and the judge has vacated it because it was clearly the wrong choice. 

 

Think situation where the guy is on camera stabbing woman and screaming "my name is Nathan and I am stabbing this woman to death and I am in sound mind and planned this carefully" coming back not guilty because they "liked his honesty".

 

 


Glurp
7990 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3716

Subscriber

  Reply # 1957104 14-Feb-2018 14:46
Send private message

networkn:

 

Think situation where the guy is on camera stabbing woman and screaming "my name is Nathan and I am stabbing this woman to death and I am in sound mind and planned this carefully" coming back not guilty because they "liked his honesty".

 

 

 

 

I like your sense of the ridiculous. I'm certain there must be cases not far removed from what you describe but I suppose that is the price of a justice system that errs on the side of caution. Hasn't there been something in the past where someone got off because of his twin brother? Or is that just a TV plot?

 

No system can ever be perfect. I would imagine that two judges would take their duty seriously and would rarely disagree. But if they did that might be cause for acquittal. And then there is always the appeals process. I don't see a huge problem here.

 

 





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


152 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 49


  Reply # 1958112 14-Feb-2018 15:49
3 people support this post
Send private message

kiwi_64:

 

A colleague had a theory that the best way to avoid selection was to either dress really formally (and get immediately challenged by the defence) or super scruffy (and be challenged by the prosecution) ... 

 

 

The best way to avoid selection is to not show up at all.

 

If you show up you still have to be there for a couple of hours each day for a week.

 

Tens of thousands skip Jury Duty each year. What's one more?


4952 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2011


  Reply # 1958117 14-Feb-2018 16:04
2 people support this post
Send private message

Why don't they simply select jurors from among the willing. 

 

Put another way why would you want unwilling jurors?





Mike

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.