Jury Duty

Forums › Off topic › Jury Duty

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

1293 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1958118 14-Feb-2018 16:06

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..

But, under that scheme such as in France, the judges also investigate to satisfy themselves of the facts of the case, so you have to allow for all of that time too.

As mentioned, no system is perfect. What if, under this inquisitorial system, the judge in your case comes to an incorrect conclusion - i.e. you are guilty?

Under the NZ system you can hire an advocate to challenge any evidence the crown holds..

Who do you trust more to look after your interests - yourself, or the crown?

JimmyH

2674 posts

Uber Geek

#1958258 14-Feb-2018 19:03

Personally, I'm not opposed to juries, as per my previous post. But jury duty can be a massive inconvenience (and sometimes a large financial loss) depending on your circumstances - particularly if you own or work in a small business, or do contract work.

I would happily do a deal with the Crown. I'm planning to retire at 65. I would happily agree to do an entire month (or even two) of jury service within six months of retiring, without any payment at all, in return for being excused until I hit 65.

Rikkitic

Devastation by stupidity
12256 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1958275 14-Feb-2018 19:20

elpenguino:

Who do you trust more to look after your interests - yourself, or the crown?

I sure wouldn't trust a jury of my 'peers'.

I don't think there is ever a bad time to talk about how absurd war is, how old men make decisions and young people die. - George Clooney

networkn

22690 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1958282 14-Feb-2018 19:27

Rikkitic:
elpenguino:

Who do you trust more to look after your interests - yourself, or the crown?

I sure wouldn't trust a jury of my 'peers'.

I wouldn't trust a jury of your peers either lol

paulchinnz

Circumspice
684 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1958289 14-Feb-2018 19:40

Is one a peer if one posts on the same thread?

Geektastic

14616 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1958339 14-Feb-2018 21:43

paulchinnz:
Is one a peer if one posts on the same thread?

No. If you're a Lord.....

Geektastic

14616 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1958364 14-Feb-2018 23:36

networkn:

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.

You can't really be in contempt unless proceedings have actually begun. So, you say that outside where the barristers can hear and ensure that at least one of them doesn't want you once you get in there...

If I ever get called, I hope it is for something intellectually interesting like a long fraud case or something. Petty burglaries etc would be so dull.

Rikkitic

Devastation by stupidity
12256 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1958428 15-Feb-2018 09:16

Geektastic:

If I ever get called, I hope it is for something intellectually interesting like a long fraud case or something. Petty burglaries etc would be so dull.

Not to the person on trial.

I don't think there is ever a bad time to talk about how absurd war is, how old men make decisions and young people die. - George Clooney

networkn

22690 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1958430 15-Feb-2018 09:18

Geektastic:

You can't really be in contempt unless proceedings have actually begun. So, you say that outside where the barristers can hear and ensure that at least one of them doesn't want you once you get in there...

If I ever get called, I hope it is for something intellectually interesting like a long fraud case or something. Petty burglaries etc would be so dull.

I think you can actually be held accountable for behaviour well before jury selection is started. If it's obvious you are trying to avoid being there deliberately.

MikeAqua

5733 posts

Uber Geek

#1958452 15-Feb-2018 09:46

Geektastic:

If I ever get called, I hope it is for something intellectually interesting like a long fraud case or something. Petty burglaries etc would be so dull.

Generally everything that happens in court is dull. I've been involved in several court cases for business reasons - environment court and civil. I've also sat in the public galleries during a high court criminal case to support a friend (victim).

They were all slow, often procedural and intolerably dull - with uncomfortable seating. Not at all like TV (except the bad seating).

It might be better now with speech to text technology, but when giving evidence you used to have to speak slowly so the scribes could type every word you said. Some times you have to repeat yourself. Surprisingly speaking slowly can be difficult when sitting as a witness - especially when responding to cross-examination

Mike

Geektastic

14616 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1958526 15-Feb-2018 11:22

MikeAqua:

Geektastic:

If I ever get called, I hope it is for something intellectually interesting like a long fraud case or something. Petty burglaries etc would be so dull.

Generally everything that happens in court is dull. I've been involved in several court cases for business reasons - environment court and civil. I've also sat in the public galleries during a high court criminal case to support a friend (victim).

They were all slow, often procedural and intolerably dull - with uncomfortable seating. Not at all like TV (except the bad seating).

It might be better now with speech to text technology, but when giving evidence you used to have to speak slowly so the scribes could type every word you said. Some times you have to repeat yourself. Surprisingly speaking slowly can be difficult when sitting as a witness - especially when responding to cross-examination

I suppose it depends on the subject matter.

In a former life, I took two cases to the Lands Tribunal in Chancery Lane for employers. They were vastly complex and very dull to almost anyone except those of us involved and my employers (who in the larger of the two cases would either win and be paying $1m or lose and end up paying $10m.)

For me, both cases were made even more interesting because the barrister acting for the opposition was the same chap who had written the text book on the subject at hand which we had used at University and he was therefore regarded by us when we were students as the Gold Standard on the subject.

We beat him both times.

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1958533 15-Feb-2018 11:30

That must have been immensely satisfying!

MikeAqua

5733 posts

Uber Geek

#1958544 15-Feb-2018 11:45

I'm sure court is at times very interesting for students and practitioners of law. Personally having had a substantial stake (professional or emotional) in cases I have found the tedious pace combined with the tension quite tortuous.

But yes winning is always good - although the only winners in the criminal case were the prosecutors.

Mike

afe66

2392 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1958548 15-Feb-2018 12:00

I once heard the chch ?chief crown prosecutor speak and she listed a number of professions whose members would unlikely to be allow to serve on juries as would be objected to.

Included doctors, lawyers, politicians and experts in fields involved with evidence processing such as biochemists and geneticists where DNA might be part of the case.

invisibleman18

579 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1958568 15-Feb-2018 12:15

Interesting. So basically all the people who would actually understand the evidence can't do it.

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