Bloody jury service

[fussychica]

In all my years at work, where I would have been paid by my employer, I was never called for jury service. I'm now retired and I've been called right in the middle of the summer. Although I don't mind doing the actual thing getting there will be a nightmare, (I dont drive) and the subsistance doesnt even cover 2 drinks let alone lunch. I dont have an actual holiday booked but had quite a few plans for this part of the summer. I know its my civic duty but Im a bit pissed off about it as if you couldnt tell

I did it last year. It was a harrowing three-week case and we all took it very seriously - I don't think anyone didn't listen or just wanted to get it over with.

I'm self-employed and had to give evidence of my normal day rate, which meant I was paid the maximum rate they allow to cover earnings. It wasn't as much as my day rate but I did get paid.

I've deferred in the past when it would have been disastrous childcare-wise and work-wise and I found them to be very reasonable about not expecting me to do jury service in those circumstances.

Yes it's a pain when it cuts across holiday plans so I can see your gripe OP, but it's probably an inconvenience for most people who are called.

I found jury service very interesting and I think it's a privilege to be involved rather than a chore.

I'd love to do jury service because I don't automatically believe what I hear and I love to analyse and debate. A corruption case would be really interesting. My only concerns would be that it would leave me out of pocket (I'm self employed), impacted on my studies, especially exams or assignment deadlines, and that my dog would be left alone all day for an extended period of time (I doubt dog sitters would be covered by expenses!). Lunch expenses might be OK because I'd just take a flask of tea and a packed lunch, which I'm used to doing regularly anyway.

"I do have v little sympathy for retired people getting called up. Honestly, you still get your pension!"
It's not always about the money though is it. Someone can be retired but still have a life full of commitments, eg childcare for grandchildren, scout leaders.

"I think the best way to organise it would be to say that every adult citizen has to do a stint at some point of their choosing...Then you have an online booking system where you choose your dates that would suit..."
I think that's a great idea Thetruth.

"So surely you insure against it then? Just like you insure against your house burning down or any other financially ruinous possibility"
Great, let's pay for insurance when really the system needs to just work better.

"Why don't they use people in benifits to do it as they do not work"
"Because it's meant to be a cross section of society."
People on benefits are a cross-section of society though.

Now Gove is in charge there will certainly be plenty of change. Don't hold your breath for improvements though.

All you moaners about jury service, why not emigrate to one of the many countries around the world to whom trial by jury is a complete anathema.

There's China, most of the Middle east, many African states, Russia and surrounding countries. There's loads to choose from.

That way you can relax knowing you never will have to be inconvenienced by sitting on a jury. Of course, should you ever be accused of something, you won't have the benefit of a jury trial either, but that's a small price to pay for avoiding being deprived or your pret a manger lunch or having to leave the dog alone.

forty that's brilliant

I received a only letter yesterday to confirm that I am exempt from jury service based on medical grounds as I was called up three weeks ago. I am due to start my first round of IVF soon and the jury service would be right in the middle of it. I had to send off letters to support my exemption from my GP and consultant. So relieved I'm exempt as I would definitely not have been of sound mind and body with all the emotions and drugs!

Despite the IVF, it still would've been a massive inconvenience as I'm self employed. However, I would still do it as my view is that if myself or one of my loved ones/family/friends was wrongly accused of a crime which went to trial, I would want somebody like me on the jury.

But as I asked before, TTWK and TheBlackRider, is it acceptable for decent hard working people to end up in debt and losing their home because they've been called to jury service? Because, as I said, 9wks of DH not getting paid meant we ended up in lots of debt and almost lost our home. So soon after graduating, trying hard to pay off our student debt meant that jury service insurance really wasn't something that occurred to us.

We'd be fine these days as DH is employed and we have savings but 1000s of people are living hand to mouth on short term contracts. Do we insist they serve even if it means their family doesn't eat?

God, I'd love to be called for jury duty. A couple of weeks (or more) away from normal life, a child-free commute to the city centre with an opportunity to read a book and listen to my iPod uninterrupted. A chance hang around doing not v much (more reading) waiting to be chosen (or not) would be a welcome change for me.

If it also fell in the long school summer holidays that would be even better.

It's a bit like complaining about our electoral system though - just because others have it worse, that doesn't mean we can't discuss how to make ours better.

I hear you there Tea and I don't even have children!
I don't get people saying that they were bored sitting about. Take a book/knitting/podcast with you. Sitting about with no guilt of what you should be cleaning etc. Hell with smart phones and iPlayer you could sit about watching TV.

...whilst losing your home and being unable to support yourself or your family.

The upper age limit for jury service is 70. I am in my 40s and my retirement age is 68. I am fairly certain it will be moved again and that I won't retire before 70.

I think it's unlikely in future that juries will have retired people sitting on them.

Jury service is part of our criminal justice system. It's important that those who are chosen participate. But I can see that it's a lot harder for people with small children than retired people. I am aware that retired people may have many commitments, but it's not the same as suddenly having to find childcare for preschoolers.

Ooh I'd love to do it. I'd like a gritty murder trial like something out of Eastenders.

Ooh I'd love to do it. I'd like a gritty murder trial like something out of Eastenders.

Lots and lots of full colour close up pics of hatchet wounds etc. Its pretty grim when its all real.

You have to actually look at dead body pictures? . Erm...maybe not then.

And not just photos, you have to listen to witnesses talk about what they heard and saw. I've only "done" one murder trial and some of the witnesses saw the victim get stabbed. So the jury got to hear about that, from the paramedics about how they tried to save him. And the VPS from his mother talking about how her life was destroyed with his murder

"Gritty murders" are not very nice in reality and certainly nothing like Eastenders !

Yep, close up photos of knife wounds on dead bodies, blood stained clothing passed around (actual clothing, not photos), weeping bereaved family, it can be harrowing. Having said that, we did all get hysterical giggles once or twice over parts of the proceedings (outside the courtroom I might add).

I agree absolutely with trial by jury. Absolutely. But nobody on this thread is addressing the major issue there is with regards the self employed or those on short term contracts. The system ignores the fact that by doing jury duty, that citizen is being placed in financial hardship. How can that be fair and reasonable. Employment patterns have evolved dramatically in the last 40yrs. The system cannot cope with either the self employed or working mums in need of childcare.

Yeah, the body photos, clothes and folders upon folders of what the accused had been looking at on the internet were horrible.
Then there's both families in the gallery (victim and accused) waiting for the decision. I found that the worst bit to be honest because you consider everything, really carefully for ages, and you think you've made the correct decision, but one family are going to be crying at the result.
This is why I can't understand the people that don't concentrate when on juries, especially for serious crimes. I read on the news about a woman listening to her iPod. She was convicted though as she was caught.

Employment patterns have evolved dramatically in the last 40yrs. The system cannot cope with either the self employed or working mums in need of childcare.
Fairly sure we had self employed people and working mums (surely it's at home parents who need the childcare) 40 years ago.

I agree it does need changing but I know that they have tightened it up in the last few years as the only people serving on juries were the people who didn't know how to get out of it.

I agree it needs reform, but you can defer for up to a year. During the course of a year most people (although I accept not all) should be able to find some childcare or fit it between contracts. It shouldn't be that people are out of pocket though.