Jury service issue

Author
Discussion

lazyitus

Original Poster:

19,926 posts

265 months

Monday 28th July 2014
quotequote all
Hi all,

Just after some advice please. I have a member of family currently doing jury service. Into week 2 now and for whatever reason, they are not dealing with the case / situation very well. I do not know if this is due to the nature of the trial or simply because the verdict decision is not being arrived at due to a split jury?

This has become very (extremely) stressful for the person in question.

Is there anybody in a law court who can discuss this with my family member? Or is there indeed anyway of coming out of jury service during a trial? I suspect not for the latter question but just wondered if anybody can offer any advice.

Thanks

anonymous-user

53 months

Monday 28th July 2014
quotequote all
I am not quite sure what you mean by "anybody in a law court", as that phrase could encompass more or less anyone who happens to be in a court. Do you mean someone in the legal profession? Someone who works as a court official? In any event, there is a limit to what anyone can do to help here, as your relative is not allowed to discuss the jury deliberations with anyone not a member of the jury.

I infer that the jury has already retired to deliberate and is currently divided over a verdict. Your relative really shouldn't be talking about that at all, as strictly speaking revealing jury discussions or voting intentions is a contempt of court. If the jury has not yet retired, then it shouldn't be split at present as no one should have expressed a view yet.

If a juror's health was in issue, he or she might be discharged from the jury, but in general obtaining a discharge is quite tricky. There has to be a good reason for discharge, and finding the process difficult wouldn't usually be a sufficient reason. Your relative can be offered general counselling and can be gently urged to do their best in performing an important civic duty, but discussing the case is not really an option.



Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 28th July 18:56

anonymous-user

53 months

Monday 28th July 2014
quotequote all
PS: I am sorry if that doesn't seem very sympathetic, but the situation imposes limits, and sometimes we just have to face up to unpleasant realities. It may help for your relative to bear in mind that the trial will be more stressful (and probably more consequential) for the victim of the crime, and for the accused, innocent or guilty, than for any member of the jury.

TwigtheWonderkid

43,138 posts

149 months

Monday 28th July 2014
quotequote all
I had a friend who was called to jury service and got a very unpleasant case involving a sexual crime. After a couple of days she was finding it distressing so asked for some advice from someone in authority at the court, not sure who, with a view to pulling out. Basically she was told to suck it up, which she did. Not sure if this is standard practice.

Basically, no one would want to sit for weeks listening to details of child abuse or whatever. But someone has to, so if your name comes out of the hat, that's life I guess.

FuryExocet

3,011 posts

180 months

Monday 28th July 2014
quotequote all
Your family member needs to speak to the head of the jury service team and they'll be able to help.
No one else is going to be able to do anything and they shouldn't be talking to anyone about what's happening as it could compromise the case

lazyitus

Original Poster:

19,926 posts

265 months

Monday 28th July 2014
quotequote all
Thanks all for the advice.

I genuinely don't know the reason for the upset, I just assume it to be related to one of the two ideas I suggested. Whilst trying to ask my family member why they felt so bad, I was also aware that they could not discuss details so it was a job to find out anything in order to know who to ask about anything, if that makes sense. A tricky chat as I don't want to get anybody in trouble and certainly wouldn't try to coax the details out of the person in question.

I think the answer I needed is for the person to speak to the head of the jury service. As I'm not familiar with the set up in a court, I didn't know who would be the person to approach and so that is a big help to know.

I will pass on the info. Thanks all.

agtlaw

6,656 posts

205 months

lazyitus

Original Poster:

19,926 posts

265 months

Monday 28th July 2014
quotequote all
Thanks

matty6660

65 posts

126 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
I've always thought it was disgusting that innocent members of the public are forced to sit on the jury against their will and get distressed to the point they are considering calling the samaritans. Such a cruel society we live in.

TheRealFingers99

1,996 posts

127 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
matty6660 said:
I've always thought it was disgusting that innocent members of the public are forced to sit on the jury against their will and get distressed to the point they are considering calling the samaritans. Such a cruel society we live in.
But what would be the alternative?

remkingston

472 posts

146 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
TheRealFingers99 said:
matty6660 said:
I've always thought it was disgusting that innocent members of the public are forced to sit on the jury against their will and get distressed to the point they are considering calling the samaritans. Such a cruel society we live in.
But what would be the alternative?
A society without crime.

ewenm

28,506 posts

244 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
matty6660 said:
I've always thought it was disgusting that innocent members of the public are forced to sit on the jury against their will and get distressed to the point they are considering calling the samaritans. Such a cruel society we live in.
I hope it's the criminals you're disgusted with as it is their actions that lead to this.

matty6660

65 posts

126 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
TheRealFingers99 said:
But what would be the alternative?
Juror becoming a paid occupation - like lawyers, barristers and judges. So they know what to expect when they get into the profession. Unlike unwilling people who do not want to experience the aftermath of a horrendous crime against their will.

Sounds like a pretty good alternative to me huh?

ewenm

28,506 posts

244 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
matty6660 said:
TheRealFingers99 said:
But what would be the alternative?
Juror becoming a paid occupation - like lawyers, barristers and judges. So they know what to expect when they get into the profession. Unlike unwilling people who do not want to experience the aftermath of a horrendous crime against their will.

Sounds like a pretty good alternative to me huh?
Good grief no! I wouldn't want any case I was involved in to be determined by a group of people who potentially had career progression determined by the outcome. Far too open to abuse/influence/etc.

Trial by jury is imperfect but worth the effort IMO.

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
The idea of trial by jury is of trial by a random selection of the population. If you had professional jurors you would probably see case hardening, with jurors becoming prosecution minded, and this would reduce the role of the jury in acting as a check on over zealous prosecutions. You would also multiply the possibilities of jury nobbling and corruption, especially as criminals would be able to find professional jurors more easily than they can find randomly selected jurors.

You would need to pay jurors enough to make them resistant to bribes. You would need a pool of jurors ready to deal with varying case loads, and would have to cover the costs of jurors waiting for cases.

Also, modern societies being what they are, you could expect to see the growth of training systems, a regulatory system and a complaints system once you had a professional corps of jurors.

The present system is imperfect, but it has good democratic features and appears to work reasonably well in many more cases than not. I think that the case for replacing it has not yet been made out.

BOF

991 posts

222 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
The idea of trial by jury is of trial by a random selection of the population. If you had professional jurors you would probably see case hardening, with jurors becoming prosecution minded, and this would reduce the role of the jury in acting as a check on over zealous prosecutions. You would also multiply the possibilities of jury nobbling and corruption, especially as criminals would be able to find professional jurors more easily than they can find randomly selected jurors.

You would need to pay jurors enough to make them resistant to bribes. You would need a pool of jurors ready to deal with varying case loads, and would have to cover the costs of jurors waiting for cases.

Also, modern societies being what they are, you could expect to see the growth of training systems, a regulatory system and a complaints system once you had a professional corps of jurors.

The present system is imperfect, but it has good democratic features and appears to work reasonably well in many more cases than not. I think that the case for replacing it has not yet been made out.
Wish there was a way to put my "applause" icon here!

BOF



Jasandjules

69,787 posts

228 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
matty6660 said:
Juror becoming a paid occupation

There are many reasons why this is a bad idea I am afraid.



ewenm

28,506 posts

244 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
BOF said:
Wish there was a way to put my "applause" icon here!

BOF
clap

BOF

991 posts

222 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
ewenm said:
BOF said:
Wish there was a way to put my "applause" icon here!

BOF
clap
That's the one - thanks.

BOF

TwigtheWonderkid

43,138 posts

149 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
matty6660 said:
Juror becoming a paid occupation - like lawyers, barristers and judges. So they know what to expect when they get into the profession. Unlike unwilling people who do not want to experience the aftermath of a horrendous crime against their will.

Sounds like a pretty good alternative to me huh?
If having stupid ideas was a criminal offence, you'd be facing a jury