View Full Version : Jury Service
Well I have been called up for jury service. That is like putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank.
I really don't want to do it as it will be an inconvenience, so I am gonna plead non-impartial to excuse myself if I can.
Do you think I should try to jib out of it because of my prejudices? I actually kinda think it is better for 10 innocent men to go to jail than one guilty man to be set free.
weeboyagee
27-Apr-05, 09:57
You? :lol: Jury Serivce? :eek: Glad I'm not the accused! Never been called up for that but been in the dock a few times!! Holding on to my license by the skin of my teeth!
I've always wanted to be called for jury service - but it's never happened. I am so interested in what goes on in a courtroom - I would be down there every Thursday, but in a little town like this I would be branded as a nosey parker.
I would be down there every Thursday, but in a little town like this I would be branded as a nosey parker.
Surely those only without guilt should cast the first stone? :roll: Where are you?
I actually kinda think it is better for 10 innocent men to go to jail than one guilty man to be set free.
What happens when its you or your wife or your son though rheghead?
Seriously Jury duty is important get on with it and stop wriggling out your responsibilities
What happens when its you or your wife or your son though rheghead?
That is a toughy but they would probably not be in a situation to arouse suspicion in the first place. Otherwise they should face justice.
Seriously Jury duty is important get on with it and stop wriggling out your responsibilities
I am wriggling out of it to suit both mine and justice's needs. I will probably say guilty just to get it over with unless the others say not guilty then i would say not guilty just to get it over with. I don't have a lot of faith in the justice system anymore (I was once an idealist) so I will just claim any expenses and have done with it.
Well I have been called up for jury service.
That is great, i would like to give that a go :Razz
Otherwise they should face justice.
How is it justice if you are convicted and are innocent and how do you avoid being in a position to arouse suspicion? Dont be daft
Better a guilty man goes free than an innocent one is convicted.
IgnorantWeeker
27-Apr-05, 13:30
Rheg, You could always listen to the evidence and make your decision on that! But by your own admission thats a bit beyond you eh!
Would your lack of faith in the justice system have something to do with the fact if it's not your way it's obviously wrong.
FoosumBrute
27-Apr-05, 14:05
As a jury has been called, that must mean Northern Constabulary have actually managed to solve a crime - that must be a first !
Mind you, the defendant is probably one of their own, as God knows there's enough petty corruption in the force.
As Rheggers is so apathetic about jury duty I think he’s absolutely right to step aside and let somebody else do it instead. Hopefully that someone will recognise the responsibility being entrusted to them and won’t just be thinking about the fastest way to get back home for some dinner.
What happens when its you or your wife or your son though rheghead?
That is a toughy but they would probably not be in a situation to arouse suspicion in the first place. Otherwise they should face justice.
No, that’s a copout. You said it would be better for ten innocent men to go to jail than one guilty man to be set free. Now you are saying that those ‘innocent’ men must have done something wrong in order to be under suspicion in the first place.
What are they; innocent or guilty? You can’t have it both ways.
As a jury has been called, that must mean Northern Constabulary have actually managed to solve a crime - that must be a first
No, it means that they think they've managed to solve a crime. The jury is being formed to determine whether or not that is actually the case.
Of course it's a copout. :)
I am really hacked off about it, get someone else to do it.
Okay, so we'll set your copout aside and I'll ask you the same question as Squidge did:
You said that you would rather see ten innocent people jailed than one guilty person go free… so what happens when one of those ten is your wife or your son (or even you)?
Aww, ok, what I said was probably an over reaction to being hacked off at jury service. I will try to put aside my frustation purely in the name of justice. But I maintain my right to be a hardliner when it comes to sappy alibis. I won't be easily fooled, my level of reasonable doubt is reasonably higher than most.
:( Rheghead...with your attitude, I really think you should NOT be part of a jury.Hope none of the court staff have read your post on here. [mad]
:( Rheghead...with your attitude, I really think you should NOT be part of a jury.Hope none of the court staff have read your post on here. [mad]
That is the WHOLE idea.
Having now served on jury service, I can now say I see things in a different light.
Every juror thought the accused was guilty but the law prevented a guilty verdict to be given.
Whitewater
20-Sep-05, 22:37
Rheghead wrote
Every juror thought the accused was guilty but the law prevented a guilty verdict to be given
How can this happen?? My wife has been on jury service and i know some wierd and wonderful things occur.
The evidence was corroborated, the accused admitted the offence in the police inquiry, the time , place, persons involved and method of the offence was not in dispute.
Yet still the jury could not deliver a guilty verdict as the law prevented it.
I reckon you have broken the law by discussing what happened in the jury room. Anyway, why was there a jury called if the accused admitted the offence? What do you mean the evidence was corroborated?
I reckon you have broken the law by discussing what happened in the jury room
Do you really think so? Which jury room am I referring to?
why was there a jury called if the accused admitted the offence?
Because she pleaded not guilty in the light of her admission.
I reckon you have broken the law by discussing what happened in the jury room
Do you really think so? Which jury room am I referring to?
I didnt realise this was another one of your puzzles. :confused
I would be a wee bit peeved if I read that one of the jury members at my trial was declaring my guilt on the local website. [mad]
I would be a wee bit peeved if I read that one of the jury members at my trial was declaring my guilt on the local website. [mad]
You are speculating that the court is local to caithness.
weeboyagee
21-Sep-05, 09:16
I would be a wee bit peeved if I read that one of the jury members at my trial was declaring my guilt on the local website.
Peeved? PEEVED? gleeber? If I were the accused and I got away with it - I'd be sneering up my sleeve and laughing in the face of justice! If I were the accused who had just gotten away with a crime that I had obviously committed you're damn right I wouldn't be peeved or worrying about websites like this - I'd be looking for the folks who took the stand against me to smart in their face and run them off the road and anything else I could do to annoy them - probably exactly what that person is doing right now - maybe if we were Joe Public looking to be protected against the like we would be more peeved at the injustice of setting the guilty free!!! Rheggers - see my PM to you!!! [mad]
Explain this Rheggers - how did the law prevent it. Can you explain this by giving us a hypothetical example
Squidge, i know you didn't ask me, but in the meantime, how about this as a hypothetical example......I'm going to guess that because a story given to the police was different by the time it got to court - or couldn't be clearly remembered since it was a while ago :confused, the corroboration no longer was valid and the evidence couldn't be relied upon - it was then simply one persons word against another? Verdict likely - "not proven" - and the person who couldn't remember further down the road after clearly remembering at the time of the incident? Probably has a chance of facing perjury charges. :mad: Meanwhile, accused gets off scot free to do the same again - what a joke, but unfortunately the reality of the legal system!
Whitewater
21-Sep-05, 11:47
See the 'Courier' today, another not proven case where stories change over time and memories arer not so clear at the trial as it has all taken too long in getting court. I understand now where you were coming from Rhegers. :eek:
Thanks Brad for your example.
I dont understand this not proven thing - its not used in english courts of law. It always seems like a cop out to me. If witness statements are given and people are interviewed at the time then surely they can refer to their statements and can remember the incident. And in additions dont the police need to gather evidence? Hmm
weeboyagee
21-Sep-05, 12:38
See the 'Courier' today.......I understand now where you were coming from Rhegers
Glad someone else agrees, knew when it went in the paper it would be public and we could all have at it then. Names, locations etc of the incident I'm talking about doesn't need to be broadcast on this website gleeber, go read the Courier for yourself.
If witness statements are given and people are interviewed at the time then surely they can refer to their statements and can remember the incident
Oh! If it were only that easy the verdict may have been totally different! :roll:
Always wanted to do jury service since I saw Clint Eastwood in Hang em High :cool:
Whitewater
21-Sep-05, 22:26
Me to. Unfortunately we can't 'Hang em High' any more and boy do they know it. :evil
Of course the most frustrating thing about being a juror is being given a piece of damning evidence that will put away the accused then only to be told because of the rules of law that that piece of evidence is no longer admissible when everyone knows that it is pertinent to the offence.
I felt like a child when he has his favorite rattle ripped from his hand...
Rheghead,
It's a good job that the law prevented the quilty verdict - I would be really hacked of to be found guilty by a bunch of fowk who aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty.. that would be a travesty.
Under those circumstances I would rather be tried by my equals, but for the very reason described above, that would be a paradox ;)
Rheghead,
It's a good job that the law prevented the quilty verdict - I would be really hacked of to be found guilty by a bunch of fowk who aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty.. that would be a travesty.
Under those circumstances I would rather be tried by my equals, but for the very reason described above, that would be a paradox ;)
Alternatively the Weeboyagee could be judge jury and executioner. Save a few quid on expenses but cost a fortune on the best malt. Mind you I suspect hereboys paradox would apply to weeboyagee just as much as it would me. :eek:
I read the Courier today and reading between the lines the I found the accused guilty. How could I come up with such a verdict from reading a journalists story in the local paper? Ill tell you why. Cos Im prejudiced and thats what I do, I read between the lines. Just like weeboyagee I think I know all the facts and no amount of legalities will change my opinion.
Hang Em High I say!
cullbucket
22-Sep-05, 08:04
Now thats one thing I miss about being away from home - the sherrif coort....
For a wee while a few years ago, the groat website was printing the sherrif court reports, but that suddenly stopped, never to appear again.....
Shame theyre not available anywhere but in the paper.....
What I'd like to know is if the law could not allow a guilty verdict then why was the case not thrown out of court?
Also if the jury felt sure that the accused was guilty then where was the reasonable doubt?
Now thats one thing I miss about being away from home - the sherrif coort....
Quite right - nothing cheers you up when you are exiled like reading who has swicked their electricity meter or who was fighting in skinandies at the weekend.
How I miss the immortal and oft repeated phrase -
"In his defence Christine Ball said, drink was to blame"
It also seemed like everything that landed in front of the Sheriff got there through "mitigating circumstances" - aha the best defence north of the ord ;)
Oh how I miss those masterpieces of legal journalism.
cullbucket
22-Sep-05, 16:53
Or how about.....
"In mitigation Mr Bruce de Wert said his client had been drinking and could remember little of the incident"
If I had £1 for every time I read that one......
weeboyagee
22-Sep-05, 17:58
...if the law could not allow a guilty verdict then why was the case not thrown out of court?.......if the jury felt sure that the accused was guilty then where was the reasonable doubt?
It is my understanding that the case proceeds to court if the crown feels there is sufficient evidence to obtain a guilty verdict. If statements given prior to the court case clearly stack up against the accused beyond reasonable doubt then the Jury hear the statement made during the trial and draw their initial conclusion. Then they hear the writer of the statement revoke it or not clearly remember the facts that they refered to in the statement and this makes the statement inadmissible as evidence. That answers the second part of your post.
Conisdering that statements made at the time of the incident were only later revoked in court (or recollections having become bemusingly obscure since the time of the statement) AFTER the case had gone to trial - at what time could it be thrown out prior to the case being called???
It is of my opinion that the PF knows when there is ample evidence in written statements to get a conviction. What he doesn't know is that the person who gives the statement is going to revoke it or not clearly remember the events as they did when they wrote the statement during trial. The case goes to court on what is prepared before time. The statement content gets revoked during trial. The jury weigh up the debate and during their deliberations become aware that the statement given at the time is now inadmissible. There is reasonable doubt and the statement can no longer be held as beyond it!!! :roll: Human instinct can determine when it can smell a rat. I reckon such a rat was reekin in a certain court room and though some jurors knew it, they were powerless to do anything about it. [mad] I am no lawyer but I can see where the law has tied up justice and thrown it to the dogs!
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.