against mandatory jury service

[happyharpist]

A friend of mine has started this petition against mandatory jury service. Please sign if you agree!

I advocate for abolishing compulsory jury service due to its potential impact on individuals' lives, causing disruptions, financial strain, and therefore potentially compromising the fairness of trials.

We believe compelling individuals without their explicit consent infringes on their rights. The obligation to serve on a jury is imposed without voluntary agreement, disrupting personal and professional lives. We consider that this lack of consent challenges the democratic principle that citizens should have a say in the responsibilities imposed on them. If jurors are grappling with anger, stress, or personal concerns such as lack of childcare or financial hardship, it could impact their ability to make unbiased decisions.

You must be sheltered if you haven't noticed that the general public is extremely biased. Juries date back to before we had an elected governments, professional judges/lawyers and the police. They're an archaic relic and should not be routinely used as it is in most modern countries, but the UK, as always, is stuck in the past.

I agree with this.

What would be great is if you could take out insurance to cover your costs if you get called

I agree with this.

there is a HUGE amount wrong with the criminal justice system, but the principle of being tried before a cross section of your peers is not one of them.

@DancefloorAcrobatics is just plain wrong

I'm 62 and have served on a jury 3 times since the first time I was called aged 36 and have been called multiple other times but not had to serve: at least nowadays you don't have to physically go along to the court to find out you're not going to be chosen, because you can phone in to find out.

Dh has also served 3 times (including a rape case at the High Court that lasted 2 weeks he was fortunate because High Court cases can last a long time ) - and will find out tonight after 5pm if he has to serve this week (and potentially might have to ring up every day this week before being discharged).

In Scotland, iirc, if you're called but don't have to serve, it's 2 years before you can be called again. If you are called and are selected, then it's 5 years before you can be called again.

I last served towards the end of Covid (the jury "sat" in the local Odeon cinema to maintain social distancing and the sheriff court was video streamed into the cinema), so I'm "safe" for a few more years

I'm fortunate in that my work has always paid full rate for any time on jury service.

I do agree with those that have said that there should be proper compensation for doing jury service - no-one should be out-of-pocket. That includes child care responsibilities - even if you're not called, as you'd need to make the arrangements in advance as you might be called

I definitely won't be signing this petition.

This did cross my mind too. Fucking nutcases the lot of ‘em.

You must be sheltered if you haven't noticed that the general public is extremely biased. Juries date back to before we had an elected governments, professional judges/lawyers and the police. They're an archaic relic and should not be routinely used as it is in most modern countries, but the UK, as always, is stuck in the past.

Yes but people have different biases. That's why there are twelve jurors and not one. I'd rather take my chances with twelve members of the public than one person with a political agenda.

I have only needed to 'use' the police once on my life and my experience of them was the worst thing that ever happened to me. I now do not trust them as far as I could throw them.

Fifteen jurors in Scotland

I didn't know that.

In some places in the US there's only six jurors which seems riskier.

You're equally sheltered if you believe that all judges are automatically immune from bias.

Sheltered? I'd say that would make me delusional! Nobody is immune from bias. What they are is highly trained professionals with decades of legal experience, not a bunch of amateurs who are there under duress.

Sheltered? I'd say that would make me delusional! Nobody is immune from bias.

But you are the one who said that we shouldn't have juries because they are biased.

There is a program on Channel 4 tonight 9pm where a real crime trial is reenacted by actors and 2 juries serve (not knowing the other is there) as an experiment. Looks interesting.

How else do you suggest criminals are judged?
Jury service is a duty and if course it should be compulsory unless there are special circumstances. It's important to have a cross section of society and making it compulsory is the only way to do that.
I don't think jurors should be fully compensated for their time though by receiving their full pay

@Thedance why do you think jurors shouldn't receive full pay? I think the current system is fine if the employer also fulfils their civic duty and tops the OP's pay up to their regular salary and I think employers should be compelled to do so. At the moment it's voluntary whether employers do this.

I'm looking forward to the C4 programme. If it's done well it should be fascinating.

One thing I would change is the support for jurors who hear and see some really harrowing things. At the moment you can ring or email the Samaritans and that's about it! On the jury I was on, in the space of 5 minutes we went from selection to hearing the dozen+ awful charges on the indictment and it was a real shock. I'd prepared myself for the worst too. That was before we'd heard any of the evidence too. The judge was brilliant though - very sensitive to all involved and he explained the breaks in proceedings and what was going on really well.