Judicial System

[missprim]

What do you think of it?
Do you have to be accessed before you can sit on a jury or do you just have to be a certain age?
I often wonder how many people sit on a jury and haven't got a clue what it's about.
Also holding a bible in your hand and swearing to tell the truth etc.
How do they know you're not an atheist?

[Buenchico]

Anyone who does not wish to swear an oath can 'affirm' instead. (That applies across the whole courts system, including for example, when seeking probate as the executor of a will).
http://webarchive.nat...rvice/oath_taking.htm

Jury service info:
http://webarchive.nat...ury_service/index.htm

[Teddy_boy]

It may not be perfect but i believe in the majority of cases that justice is done.I think in most cases where it isnt fair its more often than not people to blame for it rather than the system itself, though not exclusively.

[missprim]

Thanks for the links Chris.
I'm off to bed now so will have a look tomorrow.
Goodnight or should that be good morning :-)

[wolf63]

If I get called for jury duty I am going to try and get out of it for health reasons - and there is no way that I could be quiet for any length of time and I need to go to the 'ladies' every half hour or so.

[rockyracoon]

I beleive on the whole that it is a fair system but your concerns about the suitability of certain jurors is definitely founded, my nan got called a few years ago, she said the man couldn't be guilty as he didn't look the type, the evidence went completely over her head.

[missprim]

rockyracoon bless your Nan but that's the sort of thing I mean. If I was ever called up for jury service I would be worried to death that I wouldn't understand what it is all about and like wolf63 I don't think I could sit still with someone sitting so close next to me for any length of time.
Also my other point about swearing on a bible that you will tell the truth etc.
If you were an atheist and were called as a witness, you could just lie away, although I know you could probably get jailed for perjury.
Unfortunately I am a bit naive and believe everything I'm told so it would worry me that someone could be lying through their teeth and I would believe them. If there was another 11 like me on a jury, everybody would probably walk free.

[missprim]

Going back to my original question I think I should probably have added, do you think another way of judging a person would be better?

[jake-the-peg]

There are other ways - after all lesser cases ar heard in magistrates courts without juries and more serious fraid cases or those where there has been jury tampering can now be held without juries.

Appeal cases do not use juries and now prosecutions can appeal against sentences being to leniant as well.

Not only that but the abolition of double jeopardy protection means that in serious cases where new evidence has come up someone can be tried twice for the same offence.

So in general I'd say that a lot of the reforms of recent years have been pretty positive.

One of the issues with juries though is their tendency to accept authority figures - the idea that because someone is in the dock they must be there for a good reason - that the presumption of innocence in practie is more a presumption of guilt

Another is a tendency for high profile and emotional cases to sway juries over the facts of a case.

I would suggest that a lot of that depends on how good the judge is.

Perhaps in such cases we might benefit from the ability for a tribunal of judges to hear a case if there's reason to suspect a fairtrial might not otherwise be possible.

[missprim]

imo I think the roles should be reversed as in judges deciding if a person is guilty or innocent and a jury of men and women giving out the punishment.
This way the people who commit horrendous crimes would get a suitable sentence and not a smack on the wrist.

[jake-the-peg]

Well in recent years there has actually been a general increase in sentences - so called sentene infation.

However I think one of the more significant changes was the last Government's introduction of IPP or indefinate sentences where people who have committed serious violent offences not warrnting a life sentence can be kept in gaol past their sentence until they demonstrate they are not a threat to the public.

However the current government wants to abolist these - bit of a "not invented here" syndrome IMHO

[dzug2]

<<Also my other point about swearing on a bible that you will tell the truth etc.
If you were an atheist and were called as a witness, you could just lie away, although I know you could probably get jailed for perjury.>>

You don't have to be an atheist to lie in the witness box.

[missprim]

I understand dzug but I just thought that if you did believe in God and you swore on a bible to tell the truth then you would? Have never stepped into a court for any reason in my life and hope I never have to.

[ichkeria]

You could always try (so to speak) the Ukrainian system, where the person who pays the most money to the judge gets the outcome they want.

[missprim]

Wouldn't be surprised if that happens here!