Can someone explain jury service?
woofwoof77
Posts: 2,166 Forum Member
✭✭✭
Well, call me thick but I had no idea that people on a jury were normal everyday people:o, until I came across it on another forum.
I've never been chosen, I hope I never am. I am very anxious in groups of people and I have bad concentration...though ive not been diagnosed with anything.
Has anyone here done it?
Is it only for people that vote? Because I haven't voted for years, so would I get sent a summons? Its all just freaking me out now.
What if you're undecided at the end of it all?
Do you have to give reasons for your decision?
I would hate to do it, places of authority, people of authority...make me very anxious =/
I've never been chosen, I hope I never am. I am very anxious in groups of people and I have bad concentration...though ive not been diagnosed with anything.
Has anyone here done it?
Is it only for people that vote? Because I haven't voted for years, so would I get sent a summons? Its all just freaking me out now.
What if you're undecided at the end of it all?
Do you have to give reasons for your decision?
I would hate to do it, places of authority, people of authority...make me very anxious =/
0
Comments
In short, you listen to the evidence on both sides, then pop into a room, discuss it for a bit and see if you all agree on the verdict.
Depending on the case, the judge may accept a majority verdict (e.g. some think guilty, some think not guilty), but when I did it, the judge said he'd prefer a unaninmous decision.
What that meant was, we voted, we discussed some more trying to convince each other, we voted again, etc. Eventually if it takes too long (We discussed it for a day and half, a lot are under an hour), then the judge either accepts a majority verdict, or the jury is dismissed and it goes to a retrial.
You might be asked to explain your reasons in the jury room, but what is said in there is kept secret. You don't have to explain your reasons to anyone outside of the jury.
I found it pretty interesting myself, though the salary compensation for being off work was rubbish.
I found it an interesting process, but quite tiring. You have to concentrate and take it very seriously because someone's liberty is at stake. I also found the Crown Prosecution Service a bit inept, lots of confusing about missing documents at one case in particular.
You can also bump into the defendants on the way in or in the streets around the court. Luckily mine weren't violent and we studiously ignored each other despite mutual recognition.
Because the jury is drawn from the normal man or woman on the street there are varying levels of intelligence on the jury. Some people just did not get the most basic facts/evidence which led to lengthy deliberations before coming to a verdict. I found it quite disturbing that they were allowed to sit in judgement on someone but I don't see what an alternative system could look like.
You do get flung in with all sorts of people and it is important to speak up. What you think could change a verdict so you do need to speak up for the sake of the defendant, if you think they are innocent, or for society and justice, if you think they are guilty.
I've always quite fancied it as well - I suppose that sooner or later I'll get selected
Me too! Don't know why but I think it would be interesting. My mate has done it twice. He said he was not allowed to discuss any aspect of the case. The only thing he said about both cases was he voted guilty lol.
It's not really a social situation. You aren't permitted to discuss the case until you retire to consider your verdict. Before that, you don't have to talk to anyone else unless you want to. You don't have to speak during the jury's deliberations either, unless you want to, though it makes sense to ask questions if you don't understand anything.
The process is based on the principle that jurors don't have any special qualifications or knowledge and they aren't allowed to consider any facts that are not given in evidence. So the verdict is based on what's said in court and any additional directions given by the judge, and if the jury gets it wrong it is ultimately the fault of the professionals who presented the facts, not the "ordinary" people who make up the jury.
On top of that I work from home for a family business so not only would they need to cover my pay they would need to cover loss of sales which would amount to hundreds of pounds as I am the only one who processes the online sales for the business, everything being stored on my home laptop.
You are advised and briefed on how the process works, and are usually given advice and a summation by the actual judge as to the facts of the case and what you should consider etc.
I did it around 15 years back. Fairly mundane fraud case, kind of obvious what had happened and what the verdict should be...but you still had to follow the process.
What I do recall is quite a few people on the jury who did not speak English very well, and didn't really seem to understand what was going on and did not converse much. So the reality was a few of us who could converse did most of the talking and deliberating in the room afterwards, and asked the others what they thought, their verdict was etc...but there was kind of a feeling that some people did not really understand and went along with the majority. Thank god it was a very obvious verdict...had it been a more complicated case god knows what would have happened.
I do vividly recall being chosen very quickly as the foreman (I was the oldest there...and everyone just sort of looked at me and decided I was IT).
Now that is something everyone should experience at least once in their life...walking silently into a courtroom, the old judge walking in...will the foreman please rise...what is your verdict...GUILTY!
And if you didn't turn up based on that info, you'd be in contempt of court! Not valid reasons!
The court made a mistake, though. They brought the accused into the courtroom halfway through the jury selection process, so my full name was heard by the accused.
It is an interesting experience though - it can get harsh during the deliberations, at one point all 15 of us were literally shouting at each other over the table.
It's a criminal offence to do so without good reason.
I have a good reason.
Well yeah, but the same could be said of toilet cleaning and looking after old people.