Jury Service pending

ToneControl

shouldn't there be some kind of aptitude test or neutral interview before people are allowed to be in a jury
(Perhaps with some other public duty allocated if you fail, to avoid intentional crap results)

drofluf

ToneControl said:

shouldn't there be some kind of aptitude test or neutral interview before people are allowed to be in a jury
(Perhaps with some other public duty allocated if you fail, to avoid intentional crap results)

I like that idea. However I’m also in favour of similar tests before people are allowed to procreate and, in some cases leave the house or open their mouths, so my view may not be representative. 

More seriously, given the apparent ease of avoiding jury duty, isn’t there a risk of juries being comprised of those lacking the intelligence to get themselves excused?

Longtallronnie

Served on a sexual assault case. Found it all very stressful tbh, especially when the judge gave information after the verdict that may have affected our decision (he legally couldn’t give it before). 

We all came out of the courtroom feeling sick and questioning if we’d done the right thing. 

Having gone through the process I can see why so few SA/rape cases end with a conviction. 

EricTheWeary

euan said:

fretmeister said:

euan said:

I’ve been called up for jury duty four times in the last ten years. And frankly being forced to listen to graphic accounts and recordings of rape is beyond what I’d class as civic duty. Especially as there is no duty of care given back to jurors. 

Funny thing about jury duty citations. They cannot prove you received it. 

No care for the lawyers seeing it every day either.

I did a bunch of inquests / Coroners Court work and I still see things in my head sometimes. 

While you have my sympathies, being a juror isn’t a profession. 

Longtallronnie said:

Served on a sexual assault case. Found it all very stressful tbh, especially when the judge gave information after the verdict that may have affected our decision (he legally couldn’t give it before). 

We all came out of the courtroom feeling sick and questioning if we’d done the right thing. 

Having gone through the process I can see why so few SA/rape cases end with a conviction. 

Professionally I heard a lot of the details of these offences, of people’s lives. It’s definitely left a few mental scars but I realise I opted into this and could have opted out and some level of support was offered. I think that effectively forcing this stuff upon people is in itself abusive. 

I haven’t given jury trials a great deal of thought admittedly  but they are certainly problematic and we don’t hold to them in quite the way that episodes of Crown Court might have us imagine. Most trials are summary anyway, at Magistrate’s courts without a jury. In Northern Ireland we continue to have a small amount of trials where bias might be an issue without juries. As said above in very complex cases a jury will struggle to follow what the heck is going on anyway. Even what might sound like a more straightforward case like a burglary often involves complex evidence these days - DNA, tracking mobile phones,etc. I’m not sure what the value is in effectively abusing twelve random adults with details of sexual assaults and child abuse. And once you get into more selective jury systems like in the USA that adds a great deal of delay and the current U.K. justice system is already a long way behind schedule. I’m not suggesting that we drop juries just to speed things up and risk multiple miscarriages of justice but it does seem like the use of a jury system needs reviewing at least. Be interesting to know what former head of the CPS Keir Starmer thinks about it. 

RobDavies

I’ve done jury service four times.  

All very mixed cases and experiences but enjoyable nonetheless.  I am quite fortunate in that my company paid me in full each time.  

The last case I was on was particularly ‘juicy’ - a primary school teacher found with a load of indecent images of kids.   The prosecution barrister was so engaging and impressive that I had serious thoughts about quitting my then career at 35 and retraining in criminal law. 

If there was such a thing as a professional juror, I’d be one.  I took it very seriously, which is more than could be said of a number of my fellow jurors who just wanted to go home.  

boogieman

It’s a jury “summons” which means you’re legally bound to attend, although you can get a deferral but that depends on your circumstances and ultimately on how lenient the court or even a particular judge feels. 

I’ve done it four times. The last case was a terrorism trial at the Old Bailey and it lasted seven months. That one was a life changing experience for me, but I found most of them interesting.  

ToneControl

I've never been called to jury service so far, I have been a witness once.

If I was prosecuted, I think I'd prefer a jury of professional jurors, trained, and monitored during their deliberations. 
I'd want a written and video/audio record of their decision process.
If they aren't legally trained, I'd want to see someone sitting in with them, supervising and advising like the magistrate's legal adviser role currently in use.

Reasons?

• quality of decision making - as I always say, 50% of people have below average intelligence
• speed/cost of trial - professionals would not need to have everything simplified
• less likely to be persuaded by a good narrative from a barrister rather than evidence
• less likely to result in a trial being stopped halfway at great cost and stress to victims and witnesses
• less disruption and stress to normal citizens
• higher probability of weeding out bad apples than in a one-off

Criteria:

• above some threshold of intelligence IQ. 
• genuine diversity
• passes civil service tests of competency, e.g  these ones, but I think more would be needed
• security vetting as would be expected for the role

BillDL

euan said:

I’ve been called up for jury duty four times in the last ten years. And frankly being forced to listen to graphic accounts and recordings of rape is beyond what I’d class as civic duty. Especially as there is no duty of care given back to jurors.

Absolutely correct.  I know two people that have been permanently "scarred" from having to listen to, look at, and hear graphic images and testimony, and they had to seek mental health counselling themselves during and after (respectively) the trial.  When something comes on the TV that is going to show things that some people may be affected by they announce this before it starts and after each set of adverts.  When a TV programme shows something that may affect certain people they add text at the end giving advice for those that may have been affected by what they saw.  Jurors are warned before a trial begins that they are going to see and hear distressing things, but do they receive mental health guidance leaflets then or after the trial?  No, not to my knowledge.

When jurors are called to attend court more than will be needed are cited, much as commercial airlines overbook, because they know there will be some non-attenders and other issues where some are excused.  Most often the bank of jurors will be empanelled into juries for more than one trial, so when you receive your citation to attend as a juror there is no way of knowing what trial you will be serving on as a juror and therefore what the nature of the charges are.  If jurors were informed of the nature of the allegations against the accused on their citation I'm sure there would be some for each trial that would have a very good reason for excusal.  Instead it is left until the trial is about to begin.

snowblind

The flaw in the above criteria is the determination of the level of intelligence of the prospective juror. Defining intelligence in the first place is not a straightforward task. There are also aspects of human brain function which need to be taken into account. Given the legal system is centuries old and the knowledge of our own inner workings is relatively recent it is easy to see why the former has no regard for the latter built into it.

If a juror is presented with information and draws what seems to all other observers to be an irrational conclusion what is the course of action? 

As also alluded to in a prior post a defendant's prior history is normally kept from the jury until after the verdict in the hope that it will avoid the formation of any pre-judged opinions that might bias the outcome. Just because someone has a track record of murder/rape/torture/fraud or whatever doesn't automatically mean they did it this time around and it would be a terrible shame to convict a habitual offender when there is the slightest doubt. 

Conversely you have case like the Post Office Horizon where hundreds of people with no track record of offending all suddenly become arch criminals in the same scheme and are found guilty because one side could afford better barristers.

An intelligent person could have looked at that case, noticed the crime spree coincided with the arrival of the new IT system and drawn the reasonable conclusion. Sadly what constitutes "average" intelligence is a pretty low bar so 12 average people can be manipulated at will by someone of above average intelligence. Numbers don't guarantee a level playing field.

Take your average election. The US currently is an easy example. Somehow, last time around 70 million people decided that the narcissistic simpleton with the history of lying, fraud, sexual assault and blatant idiocy was still the best person to lead them. Given the mountains of evidence pointing to the conclusion that said orangutan is unfit for office, how do they still hold the opinion that he is the man for the top slot? How did the UK end up with Liz Truss in charge? The examples are endless.

Critical thought is hard work and most people are too lazy to do it. Couple that with some unfortunate biological inheritance in our thought processes and here we are.

drofluf

snowblind said:

<snip>

Take your average election. The US currently is an easy example. Somehow, last time around 70 million people decided that the narcissistic simpleton with the history of lying, fraud, sexual assault and blatant idiocy was still the best person to lead them. Given the mountains of evidence pointing to the conclusion that said orangutan is unfit for office, how do they still hold the opinion that he is the man for the top slot? How did the UK end up with Liz Truss in charge? The examples are endless.

Critical thought is hard work and most people are too lazy to do it. Couple that with some unfortunate biological inheritance in our thought processes and here we are.

Which reminds me I omitted voting from my list above. 

robgilmo

BillDL said:

euan said:

I’ve been called up for jury duty four times in the last ten years. And frankly being forced to listen to graphic accounts and recordings of rape is beyond what I’d class as civic duty. Especially as there is no duty of care given back to jurors.

Absolutely correct.  I know two people that have been permanently "scarred" from having to listen to, look at, and hear graphic images and testimony, and they had to seek mental health counselling themselves during and after (respectively) the trial.  When something comes on the TV that is going to show things that some people may be affected by they announce this before it starts and after each set of adverts.  When a TV programme shows something that may affect certain people they add text at the end giving advice for those that may have been affected by what they saw.  Jurors are warned before a trial begins that they are going to see and hear distressing things, but do they receive mental health guidance leaflets then or after the trial?  No, not to my knowledge.

When jurors are called to attend court more than will be needed are cited, much as commercial airlines overbook, because they know there will be some non-attenders and other issues where some are excused.  Most often the bank of jurors will be empanelled into juries for more than one trial, so when you receive your citation to attend as a juror there is no way of knowing what trial you will be serving on as a juror and therefore what the nature of the charges are.  If jurors were informed of the nature of the allegations against the accused on their citation I'm sure there would be some for each trial that would have a very good reason for excusal.  Instead it is left until the trial is about to begin.

A CAFCASS officer once told me they regularly go for therapy due to the nature of their work, I dont envy their job. I also dont see why jurors shouldnt go for an evaluation before entering the court system.

fretmeister

Professional jurors are a terrible idea.

They will become case hardened and will hear some excuses repeated dozens of times a day.

I would worry about anyone who wanted to be a professional juror. The psychological testing needed before appointment would take years.

The psychological damage to a person after hearing the worse of humanity for 40 hours a week cannot be underestimated either. The support structure would need to be massive, but no govt would be funding it properly.

Once it is a job, it’s very difficult to maintain it as a duty and to give each case Duty levels of attention. Everybody gets job boredom.

And the most important this is that Jury deliberations are secret. There would be no way of having performance reviews to look for bias, boredom etc.

HOWEVER….

In Japan and Sweden they kind of have professional jurors of a fashion… the more serious the offence, the more Judges are needed, and a majority of judges are needed to get a conviction. All deliberations are recorded and reasons written down.

The only way I’d support “professional juries” if the people who could be selected had judge level experience.

Again, no UK government is going to fund that. Theres dozens of empty judge jobs already and the government is doing nothing to boost recruitment now, let alone needing 12 per case!

robgilmo

fretmeister said:

Professional jurors are a terrible idea.

They will become case hardened and will hear some excuses repeated dozens of times a day.

I would worry about anyone who wanted to be a professional juror. The psychological testing needed before appointment would take years.

The psychological damage to a person after hearing the worse of humanity for 40 hours a week cannot be underestimated either. The support structure would need to be massive, but no govt would be funding it properly.

Once it is a job, it’s very difficult to maintain it as a duty and to give each case Duty levels of attention. Everybody gets job boredom.

And the most important this is that Jury deliberations are secret. There would be no way of having performance reviews to look for bias, boredom etc.

HOWEVER….

In Japan and Sweden they kind of have professional jurors of a fashion… the more serious the offence, the more Judges are needed, and a majority of judges are needed to get a conviction. All deliberations are recorded and reasons written down.

The only way I’d support “professional juries” if the people who could be selected had judge level experience.

Again, no UK government is going to fund that. Theres dozens of empty judge jobs already and the government is doing nothing to boost recruitment now, let alone needing 12 per case!

The problem isnt that simplistic, Japanese society is very different from ours. Considering a judge here earns at least 3 times more than a judge in Japan it begs the question are court officials out of touch socially with a lot of the people passing through the court system?

fretmeister

And yet we have a recruitment crisis.

It’s not about the money. 

It doesn’t matter if the judges are out of touch. They are there for the law.

The jury of peers deals with the rest.

Philly_Q

I'm nearly 60 and I've never been called up for jury service, but others here have done it three or four times.  I don't know how random the selection system is, but that seems a bit odd.

Kittyfrisk

Philly_Q said:

I'm nearly 60 and I've never been called up for jury service, but others here have done it three or four times.  I don't know how random the selection system is, but that seems a bit odd.

I'm older than you & have never been called up either.
Mind you I have never won anything on premium bonds, despite having had some since birth 

robgilmo

fretmeister said:

And yet we have a recruitment crisis.

It’s not about the money. 

It doesn’t matter if the judges are out of touch. They are there for the law.

The jury of peers deals with the rest.

I believe it does matter, the judge has to be able to ascertain a judgement and sentence not only based on law but also on the convicted persons abilities to exercise that judgement, something they may find difficult had they never walked the same path, or even close. In my view , and based on the crime (or none criminal) a judgement should be something that leads to a path of reformation, simply banging a fine on someone ill equipped to deal with it isnt that and is possibly more damaging to society than not. 

Philly_Q

Kittyfrisk said:

Philly_Q said:

I'm nearly 60 and I've never been called up for jury service, but others here have done it three or four times.  I don't know how random the selection system is, but that seems a bit odd.

I'm older than you & have never been called up either.
Mind you I have never won anything on premium bonds, despite having had some since birth 

I don't have premium bonds, but likewise I've hardly ever won anything out of pure chance.  I guess we're just not lucky, in a good sense and bad.

fretmeister

robgilmo said:

fretmeister said:

And yet we have a recruitment crisis.

It’s not about the money. 

It doesn’t matter if the judges are out of touch. They are there for the law.

The jury of peers deals with the rest.

I believe it does matter, the judge has to be able to ascertain a judgement and sentence not only based on law but also on the convicted persons abilities to exercise that judgement, something they may find difficult had they never walked the same path, or even close. In my view , and based on the crime (or none criminal) a judgement should be something that leads to a path of reformation, simply banging a fine on someone ill equipped to deal with it isnt that and is possibly more damaging to society than not. 

Everything you just said is interpretation of law and sentencing guidelines and evidence presented during the trial.

Even after conviction the defendants barrister can present arguments for mitigation for lower sentences.

It’s up to the defendants barrister to present what the client wants, not for the judge to make assumptions. If the defendant barrister mentions something the judge doesn’t know about, then the judge will ask.

If the convicted person does not want to have anything put forward as mitigation then that is up to them.

The only time the “out of touch” argument makes the newspaper is because a judge hasn’t heard of a new pop star.

It’s a non issue. 

But, even if it was an issue, it wouldn’t affect the law. It applies equally to all.

Kurtis

If it's a particularly complex case whats to say anyone is going to understand it?