Have you got out of it? how?
Why do we have to do it? some clearly do now wish to?
Is it the best way to serve out justice?
Would a paid panel of people with some training serve us better?
I have no wish to sit on one, none at all yet I can be fined for saying no.
What do you think?
Surely press ganging me or others who think as I do serves no purpose?

Dear Belly,

Have you ever sat on a jury? Who knows - it may not be as bad as you think, (or I suppose it could be worse).

People often assume that when it comes to making decisions, two heads,
or preferably several heads, are better than one. A lot of people have great faith in democratic decision making, believing that group decisions are likely to be wiser than decisions made by individuals acting alone.

I suppose it depends to some extent on the problem that has to be solved. If the problem is a complex one, involving specialized knowledge, the efficiency of the group is far superior to that of an individual, because group members can contribute a broader range of expertise and skills.

I think our jury system works rather well. Although jury members often begin their discussions in disagreement or uncertainty, they tend to move towards a common opinion and usually render a unanimous verdict. It has long been assumed that in arriving at a group consensus, groups are likely to make less risky decisions than individuals. Nobody feels personally accountable in a group - especially if the decision turns out to be the wrong one.

I sympathise with your not wanting to go on "jury duty." But, it is something I believe should be done by everyone at least once.
And as I said earlier - it may turn out to be interesting.

In this matter Foxy we disagree freedom to just say no I do not want to sit in judgment does not exist.
We are forced to search for a reason or just lie to get out of it.
So very many people have truly important work to do, this is not even taken into account.
The wages! how can some one who earns so very much more be paid bread and water wages while maybe a self owned business floats away for a week month or more?
Other hope for a call up but what level of knowledge is needed to judge others?
Are some aware not every thing a police officer says is true? or of the long history of proving lies they tell?
How many trials have fallen after weeks of evidence as some juror refuses to convict no matter what the evidence?
Can some one inform us of the America grand jury system what it is and how it works?

belly, juries are one of the few ways that ordinary people can resist oppression by the elite. it is the duty and responsibility of the jury to protect the innocent from crooked police and uncaring or politically motivated judges.

the form of jury duty is traditional and neither as effective as it might be, nor as simple. i would investigate the use of the web and polling to get the opinion of the electorate. but the jury is what we've got, we must protect it.

in your case, you might get out of serving simply by saying "i'm old, my mind wanders, i'm afraid always of responsibility." they may well excuse you.

This kinda reminds me of the people who whinge and moan about the inconvenience of security. You ask that your tax monies help protect you from the nasty people of the world but demand that the people protecting you don't intrude on my civil liberties...

'Cakes, and eating them'.

What are our other options for a democratic jury Belly?. Professional jurors?. Three months, and they'll be bought.

How about 'Opt out' for jury duty?. How many people would actually NOT opt out?. People with agenda's and grudges, me thinks. People like you, Belly, are the reason there IS a fine for not doing it without reasonable excuse. You want to belong to a democratic society but don't want to pay for it personally?.

Move to an South American country, or Eastern bloc, or Africa, Belly. It'll be paradise where someone tells you who to vote for, dury duty is null and void, if you wnat security you can pay for your own army, health care tax is a non issue...

Belly asks

Would a paid panel of people with some training serve us better?

Comment
Can you think of a paid pannel that is possibly corrupt.
As soon as yoyu introduce a pannel, postion at top, power - You introduce the temptation for misuse.

That is why we have Jurys.

It seems a small price to pay. Although you only have to look at Old X Premier Joe in QLD to know its not impossible to stack a jury if you know people either. However in general =

Here is a list of people and you choose who you would rather trust.

Police

Government

Several ordinary people from the public.

Belly, if you want to live in a free society like ours, you can't exercise the 'cop-out' when your contribution is needed. If everyone came up with an excuse to avoid jury duty, what would happen? The paladins at the top of the legal system would jump at the chance to abolish jury duty and run the show by themselves. Kangaroo courts. As you seem to see yourself as a supporter of freedom, how would you like that?

As for if we were invaded, would you avoid conscription?

SURE-FIRE METHOD OF AVOIDING JURY SERVICE:

http://bushlawyer.blogspot.com/2006/12/application-for-excusal-from-jury.html

If the State decides that too many people are avoiding jury service by this method, it will have three options, which I list in my order of preference:

(1) Address the injustices cited as grounds for objection;

(2) Accept the services of jurors who are willing, when justice demands it, to acquit in the teeth of both the law and the facts;

(3) Pay jurors at a decent rate, so that there is no longer any need for compulsion, or at least so that there is less motivation to avoid service.

My motivation is to force the State to do at least one of the above. But I accept that fact that, if I am to achieve my goal, I will need help from many people whose motivation is simply to avoid jury service.

Of all the posts yours DEMOS surprised me the most, your dislike of me and my views colored it, do you truly think like that?
On investigating did you know a crime or even prison sentence served more than 5 years ago is not reason for disqualification?
The sheriff told me, no do not jump to conclusions you would be wrong.
And in asking in real life what others thought these two answers came.
Mate I got him off! at the start of negotiations 5 wanted him off 7 wanted him found guilty!
I swung it around , only one for guilty so we got discharged! oh yes he was guilty but bugger the police!
Second said just say not guilty and stick to it mate!
What pay is the judge on? the lawyers? court officials?
Is it not true we are being had with this doing your duty rubbish?
Why not fair wages?
And last as a union official I am an industrial advocate too can be called on any time so I do not do it exemption is given every time.
Question remains do you think the system is the best we can do?
Does it always work?
Anyone you know who should not be sitting in judgment?
I have a list.

I served on a jury a few years ago and would like to serve again as I found it very interesting. However I was disillusioned by the system as in Queensland (unlike NSW) a unanimous decision is required, so you only need one dissenter for the culprit to walk free. The particular trial I was involved in was a pedophilia and rape case. It was obvious to 10 members of our jury that the defendant was guilty, but we had one elderly female who could not believe that a man might be interested in little boys AND little girls and we could not persuade her otherwise. As a result several of the charges were dismissed. It was very traumatic for the children who gave graphic evidence, but our juror considered they were making it all up in spite of relating things that 6 year old kids would never have been able to describe if they had not experienced it.

Yes, I would like to see the jury system maintained but some thought should be give to picking the jury and also adopting the NSW system

Belly said~ "Anyone you know who should not be sitting in judgment?
I have a list."

Lol. You're sitting in judgement of them.

Your argument is nonsensical Belly. Your point on the pay side of it is valid however.

Belly, I object to conscription and Jury Duty is conscription but at the same time it's the best way I know of to minimise the risks of institutional corruption and to give us a fighting chance of judgments not being formulated by people with an ax to grind.

You might ask yourself what type of people would take on Jury work full time.

I've done it once, received the advance notice once but not been called and had to be excused once (I was due to be out of the country for part of the period). I mostly enjoyed it but did not like how clearly jurors are treated as second class. Back then the officials seem to go to pains to ensure we knew that there was a pecking order and that we were on the bottom.

I'm fortunate enough to have an employer who pays me my normal pay if on Jury Duty so the finances were not a problem.

If you get the chance do it, if for no other reason than to ensure that you have that exposure to our legal system.

R0bert

Snake
That would be horrific.

I think this thread was started with good intentions thinking about the working class man only getting $30.00 a day instead of his pay packet.

There are many self employed etc. Perhaps they could establish a way to pay full day’s wages for under a certain wage and nothing to petrol for those in better positions.

Mental health checks and checks to enquire are there any people who have been abused should be made.

Sometimes people store up aggression from such experiences and inflict their injurious and unhappiness upon others.

Normally these people do not handle power at all and tend to disagree in order to draw attention and disrupt.

You get someone like that in a jury and your bound to have problems- Lets alone the accused

Snake you addressed the issues, and gave my case a kick along .
My concerns are long held we do see the guilty walk free too often we are stunned by Juror out comes.
And one poster reminds us of a infamous case that saw a supporter on the Jury, has it happened often?
You are not on my list StG but I grinned at your post.
May I highlight the surprising and needless shot at my age by DEMOS?
Are we to discard those who we disagree with if they are older than us?
I would have thought a new way of justice might be driven by the young, even a new way of government?
Last we must not fall for doing our civic duty as a reason for doing it as the only under paid people in that court house it is a con job!

I was on a jury once. Thank god the accused ended up pleading guilty because one of the jurors was a real....ummmmm....well, you get the idea. Much like your example. The system is flawed, no-one will debate that. I do struggle with the idea of 'tweaking' the fundamentals that is the foundations of what we are as a society because of the 'what's next' ideology. It happens on the microcosm of the cross section of society that is multiplayer gaming all the time... :o) Oh you laugh now, but when one individual gets his agenda passed by the collective then every man and his puppy has a shot at theirs.

You've got my vote for fair remuneration. For the few days I was on jury I made about 45 bucks....and they supplied food. Big whoops.

It's a bit like democracy, really. The jury system is the least worst way to achieve justice.

In William Blackstone's seminal opus "Commentaries on the Laws of England" back in 1765, he opines that

"The impartial administration of justice, which secures both our persons and our properties, is the great end of civil society. But if that be entirely entrusted to the magistracy, a select body of men, and those generally selected by the prince or such as enjoy the highest offices in the state, their decisions, in spite of their own natural integrity, will have frequently an involuntary bias towards those of their own rank and dignity: it is not to be expected from human nature, that the few should be always attentive to the interests and good of the many."

I don't think much has changed in 250 years. I'd sooner trust my peers than "the authorities", any day.

For good measure, he goes on to say:

"...a competent number of sensible and upright jurymen, chosen by lot from among those of the middle rank, will be found the best investigators of truth, and the surest guardians of public justice. For the most powerful individual in the state will be cautious of committing any flagrant invasion of another's right, when he knows that the fact of his oppression must be examined and decided by twelve indifferent men, not appointed till the hour of trial; and that, when once that fact is ascertained, the law must of course redress it. This therefore preserves in the hands of the people that share which they ought to have in the administration of public justice, and prevents the encroachments of the more powerful and wealthy citizens."

That's about as convincing an argument as you can get for doing your duty to your fellow citizen, and accepting jury duty as a valuable right, and not just an annoying interruption to your life.

I have been talking about the issue in real life, it gets people interested.
Of note is a large very important person in charge of many.
You would expect him to be a leader and he is, but his quote stunned me the most.
Quote
40 years ago I was a young country lad in a big city for the first time.
I threw a few Punch's at a bloke and was taken to a police station and flogged by 2 cops .
Blood all over me I was a mess, after they found out my dad was a JP and respected in our home they made up a lie to cover up the flogging.
Young blokes grow up I still never trust the police, end quote
How would he go on the jury?

As i had a rather colourful past(teen years) and have also been a victim
of crime i exempted myself using those reasons.I also stated that i was unable to be impartial as to some particular crimes.It worked for me and i have not been called for jury duty in the 35 years since i turned 21.
If i were to runafoul of the law now,i would opt for a judge only decision. I am not so blameless that i believe i have the right to judge others.

That haygirl was well said and if it always worked as a way out I would not have a problem with it.
But it does not, threats came my way as I first tried to get out of it, the second time was different.
A post above tells of the less than good way jurists are treated why? and for how long must only the jurors suffer such low pay?
My first panel years ago saw the name read out up 11 stairs inside a building.
One name was of a man I knew outside in his wheel chair.
He could not get help to enter the building.
No effort on my part could interrupt the calling of names.
So I walked out to tell other officials of his problem, nearly got fined for that but won in the end.

While I thought the thread had run it race todays new bought a question.
A Court case in Victoria reminded me of other reasons we may be better served by other than jury's.
6 dead teen agers one driver with a 4 year old child on his lap and suggested speeds of over 100klm an hour?
How many times have we each questioned a jury verdict?
Most of us have I am sure.
Yes we never heard the full evidence but what we know of the facts leads me to ask what do you have to do with a motor car for it to be manslaughter?
The driver was found guilty of dangerous driving not culpable driving.