So now we get reports from the Herald and Telegraph about how the Jury suffered in Mark Standen's trial, to the point one or more created a letter of complaint to the judge- describing how they lost jobs, were putting pressure on their businesses, and one even had to sell their house because they couldn't afford to pay the bills-
And the outcome? Standen's lawyer tried to abort the case, and the judge simply ignored both him and the letter and insisted it continue until they finally gave a verdict.

A day or so later, plenty of people are writing in demanding the old system be abolished outright and replaced with either a panel of judges and magistrates, or a professional employed jury.
And I must say I agree- both of those options (among many other considered) are certainly better than what we have now.

Adding a letter in the SMH referring to some studies in the British courts where juries simply dragged out the trial to benefit from the food and services- and when these were taken away- simply rushed the decision to get out faster.

After all of these- can we ask NOW for what reason we continue this awful system, instead of the perfectly feasible alternatives mentioned? Perhaps it is a fear of change (ignoring modern day Germany already abolished it). It's not like the jurors have any power in the courts anyway- all they can do is suggest guilt or innocence to the judge- whether they accept it or abort the case because they didn't like the 'prejudiced' answer.

Surely the right of 12 people NOT being drafted is worth dropping the fake symbolism of 'peers'? As is the fact that the accused is not going to be judged by a panel of people who don't want to be there and are more concerned about how they are going to keep their jobs after the trial?

King Hazza,
I liked your post....having sat on Jury duty myself, I do find it inconvenient, especially when I was working, I was expected to front up for jury duty on my first day in a new job, fortunately my boss was very understanding. I am not sure about this, so don't quote me, but I was under the impression that one could request trial by a panel of judges rather than a jury, I hope this is true, because the lame brains that I encountered on my first jury duty made me very uncomfortable, not one of them took their job seriously, all they wanted was to get home.
God forbid that I find myself before the courts with some of the so-called jurors. Will just have to keep my nose clean.
Cheers King,
NSB

I have always worked in private enterprise where jury duty has always been treated as a bit of a joke. It was just an excuse drag out the last "this employee is critical" letter and tart it up a bit. They always worked - no one I've worked has ever been called in.

I won't be treating it as a joke any more. 15 weeks - that's almost 4 months. For a small company that is a huge imposition. I am not surprised some of the jurors were made redundant. If you aren't employed, the rates you are paid are almost an insult http://www.courts.dotag.wa.gov.au/F/fees_and_fares.aspx : $15..$20 per day. That could easily be the price of your public transport and lunch.

On occasion I've heard judges complaining they only get retires and public servants on their juries. They and the rest of the legal fraternity are exempt of course. Surely they aren't surprised.

I had the experience a couple of years ago of sitting in on a trial of a friend, including during the jury selection process. The trial was in a small contry town and the jury was obviously composed of townsfolk. The barrister for my friend was very particular about the jury he wanted: mostly women, mostly beyond child-bearing age and mostly of low educational attainment.

He got mostly what he wanted, although in the end it didn't matter since the principal witness managed to perjure herself in the box and the trial was abandoned.

The reason he wanted a panel like that? He was quite open about it: they're more likely to be swayed by an emotional final argument and less about the evidence, as well as being generally available for the full length of a trial. He says he tries for just that type of juror whenever he can.

I avoided it,called up many times but told a lie every time.
Come do not be surprised most do it.
Gave evidence all too often, presented Industrial matters.
But lie? yes the pittance paid, the weeks of work backing up.
We should pay these poor beggars or set them free, no one should have to sell a home.

we are going over old ground

if we remove the right to a jury
[ie being judged by equals]

those in the jury miss the RIGHT
to judge the law...as well as the crime

juries vet out unfair laws
but the juries are stacked with fools
who think govt is allways right..we need informed jurors

read up on jury nullification
you will finf how i tried to explain it
soooo many times

if you take away living people
you make a machine..that cant see shades of grey
only black white..[so many are in hell simply cause they lied
or were lied to]

the judge is ONLY to adfvise on questions of law
ie say what is a person..what is a victim..etc

we have the magna carta for good reasons

we been there tried that..!
and absolute power corrupted absolutly

then we also come to the place
where you know who to threaten!

underr law anything IN A BOX
isnt there

we allready got too many imbisiles in law
law should be taught in school

as many judges say
ignorance of the law is no excuse
yet fools dont know the only true law
is based on a living victim..having been hurt by an other

no injury..no crime for a jury to judge
look at the darn word..IN-jury

who judge a fair compensation
the justness of the charge...process of law..etc etc

no victim
NO CRIME*