Stupid people (Vicky Pryce jury discharged)

[Wozza]

Story here: BBC News - Vicky Pryce jury discharged in Huhne speeding points case

Beeb says the jury asked the judge questions "the number and nature of which were quite unusual".

No shit!

They asked if they could "come to a verdict based on reasons that were not presented in court or supported by the evidence". WTF?!

They also asked what "beyond reasonable doubt" means.

And asked about Pryce's religious convictions.... even though it's not a matter in the trial.

WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?!

 

[smeariestbat]

makes you think people should have to pass a common sense test before sitting on a jury!

 

[Superphil]

Probably beacuse those who would be best on a jury have jobs in which they can't afford to take the time off to do it. I know I couldn't, if I did, and ended up on a long case, (2 weeks+) I wouldn't sell much, probably miss my sales targets, and soon be either out of a job, defaulting on my mortgage, or both. Likewise my wife, she works in a firm of 4 people, without her the company simply cannot opperate. They have to plan their annual leave 9-12 months in advance, you just don't get that amount of time or notice with jury service.

 

[Kumquat]

A bit like Arsene Wenger saying his team were good enough to beat Bayern Munich in advance of the game. Bet he wishes he could discharge them and bring in Barcelona.

 

[BensGrandad]

Probably beacuse those who would be best on a jury have jobs in which they can't afford to take the time off to do it. I know I couldn't, if I did, and ended up on a long case, (2 weeks+) I wouldn't sell much, probably miss my sales targets, and soon be either out of a job, defaulting on my mortgage, or both. Likewise my wife, she works in a firm of 4 people, without her the company simply cannot opperate. They have to plan their annual leave 9-12 months in advance, you just don't get that amount of time or notice with jury service.

In the event of one of the four having a serious long term illess would the firm close or bring in a temp.

 

[Billy the Fish]

Prosecutor Andrew Edis QC said the jury of eight women and four men did not appear to have "truly understood" or "sufficiently grasped" its task.

There's your problem

 

[Superphil]

In the event of one of the four having a serious long term illess would the firm close or bring in a temp.

Exactly, and something they are crucially aware of, the likelehood is that should that scenario arise, they would have to close the firm. I think it's ridiculous, but as a business in the current climate, thay cannot justify an additional person, and no chance a temp could do at least 2, possibly 3 of the 4 roles unless they were unfeasibly lucky in who they found. I suggested they all train to do each others job, but, having met them all, I don't think that is viable either. A sorry state of affairs on one hand, on the other, they are doing OK at the moment, keeping thier heads above water after a number of years being on the brink.

There must be many small, specialist businesses who would struggle if a member of staff was called away to jury service, or maternity, long term illness etc. At least with jury service there is the option of not doing it so long as circumstances can be proven. For us, fortunately the wife isn't going to be having a baby anytime soon, and neither are the three guys she works with.

 

[Brovion]

Probably beacuse those who would be best on a jury have jobs in which they can't afford to take the time off to do it. I know I couldn't, if I did, and ended up on a long case, (2 weeks+) I wouldn't sell much, probably miss my sales targets, and soon be either out of a job, defaulting on my mortgage, or both. Likewise my wife, she works in a firm of 4 people, without her the company simply cannot opperate. They have to plan their annual leave 9-12 months in advance, you just don't get that amount of time or notice with jury service.

You can claim expenses and loss of earnings so you won't suffer financially, but having a job doesn't get you out of doing jury service. I speak from experience! (Regardless of how crucial you are to your organisation) You're allowed to defer it, but you have to do it eventually. Usually it's only for two weeks (unless you get on a long trial), so from a work point of view it's only like you've taken a holiday.

 

[Triggaaar]

makes you think people should have to pass a common sense test before sitting on a jury!

No kidding. So much money is spent on these trials, and sometimes some members of the jury are so stupid that the whole thing has no chance of a conclusion.

 

[smeariestbat]

thats why magistrates is sometimes better than crown. I'd rather my case be decided by three impartial, well educated people, than 12 potential idiots.

 

[drew]

Probably beacuse those who would be best on a jury have jobs in which they can't afford to take the time off to do it. I know I couldn't, if I did, and ended up on a long case, (2 weeks+) I wouldn't sell much, probably miss my sales targets, and soon be either out of a job, defaulting on my mortgage, or both. Likewise my wife, she works in a firm of 4 people, without her the company simply cannot opperate. They have to plan their annual leave 9-12 months in advance, you just don't get that amount of time or notice with jury service.

What complete bollocks. You think you're superior to the thousands that sit on juries each year. Seems that you're just a salesman, why does that make you superior. If selected, you will be asked if you are able to sit on a long trial but I believe most cases only last 2 or 3 days and in your 2 week tenure you might get to do a couple of cases. I'd love to know how you would feel if some scum beat up your wife and left her for dead and got away with it because people like you can't be arsed to sit on a jury!

 

[mona]

Strange that politicians are fired up to constantly change the nhs, the police, education, the public sevices and much besides but the English legal system is allowed to plod on at massive public expense.

 

[Superphil]

You can claim expenses and loss of earnings so you won't suffer financially, but having a job doesn't get you out of doing jury service. I speak from experience! (Regardless of how crucial you are to your organisation) You're allowed to defer it, but you have to do it eventually. Usually it's only for two weeks (unless you get on a long trial), so from a work point of view it's only like you've taken a holiday.

I guess if I was ever called I could try the expenses claim, however, it's not just my loss of earnings at stake, if I don't sell stuff, I don't hit target, if I don't hit target, I am (very) liable to lose my job. If I told my boss I was going to do jury service for any more than 2 weeks, he would just advise me that it would probably mean that I wouldn't be able to hit my targets, and he doesn't employ people who don't hit their targets. I would be able to take 2 weeks of it as part of my paid holiday although we are expected to be available when we are on holiday (Mobiles, Blackberries and VPNs and all that). Could/would those eventualities be covered by expenses?

As for my wifes work, they've managed to get Jury service defferred and guaranteed no more than 2 weeks in the past, for the reasons I specified before, however, the person who was called ended up never being called, I guess becasue they actually can't guarantee the service won't last more than 2 weeks.

As a last resort, I suppose if I was called, and it looked like it was going to go on for more than 2 weeks, I could ask a question like "can we come to a verdict based on reasons that were not presented in court or supported by the evidence?" or "what does reasonable doubt mean?".

 

[Kaiser_Soze]

What complete bollocks. You think you're superior to the thousands that sit on juries each year. Seems that you're just a salesman, why does that make you superior. If selected, you will be asked if you are able to sit on a long trial but I believe most cases only last 2 or 3 days and in your 2 week tenure you might get to do a couple of cases. I'd love to know how you would feel if some scum beat up your wife and left her for dead and got away with it because people like you can't be arsed to sit on a jury!

Bit harsh to say the least. Nowhere does [MENTION=268]Superphil[/MENTION] say he is superior to anyone or that he can't be arsed to sit on a jury. The simple fact is that some companies are atrocious as paying for jury service or anything else. I was a witness in a case once and was only able to claim the time I was actually in court, not my travel time up to London or anything else. In a role such as sales, you won't get paid any of the missed commision over half the month.

I also went to the Old Bailey and happened upon a murder trial. One of the jurors was wearing a Welsh rugby shirt. In my opinion, if you are sitting on a jury on a charge as serious as murder, at least make it look like you give a shit and will pay attention. Doesn't take much to put on a shirt and jeans!

 

[Titus]

I've done it twice, and there are some really stupid people about. One of the cases I was on was a serious assault and the judge said he wouldn't accept a majority verdict. One of the jury was really outspoken in the jury room that he was convinced the chap was not guilty when all the rest of us were sure he had done it. After an hour went by the chap looked at his watch, saw it was getting late and decided to change his mind.

 

[Kumquat]

There's your problem

Did you mean to put "Prosecutor Andrew Edis QC" in bold? I bet a female judge would have grasped they weren't up to it much quicker. I mean, it IS his job!!!

 

[Superphil]

What complete bollocks. You think you're superior to the thousands that sit on juries each year. Seems that you're just a salesman, why does that make you superior. If selected, you will be asked if you are able to sit on a long trial but I believe most cases only last 2 or 3 days and in your 2 week tenure you might get to do a couple of cases. I'd love to know how you would feel if some scum beat up your wife and left her for dead and got away with it because people like you can't be arsed to sit on a jury!

Yes, I'm a salesperson, no I don't think I am superior to anyone, far from it, I'm a sales rep, if I don't hit targets, I get sacked, it's tough but that is the way it goes. You have pointed out that you get asked if you want to (or can) sit on a long case, the first time anyone has mentioned that, and I did not know that. Assuming that is the case, then I would say that I could only do a maximum of 2 weeks, for which I would have to take it from my annual paid holiday allowance. That's how it is. So perhaps you can see why I would simply be unable to do jury service for any more than 2 weeks, and would do pretty much anything I could to get out of doing it at all.

If the jury system cannot vet the people it chooses to put on a jury better than they have demonstrated in this case, then there lies your problem. This country employs millions of people in the public sector, many of them educated and apparently intelligent, 90% of them could sit on a jury for any length of time without it threatening their jobs, or their livelehoods, (a benefit of trades unions and civil service contracts perhaps). Yet they choose poeple who ask questions like "can we come to a verdict based on reasons that were not presented in court or supported by the evidence".

The system for selecting juries is wrong.

 

[drew]

Yes, I'm a salesperson, no I don't think I am superior to anyone, far from it, I'm a sales rep, if I don't hit targets, I get sacked, it's tough but that is the way it goes. You have pointed out that you get asked if you want to (or can) sit on a long case, the first time anyone has mentioned that, and I did not know that. Assuming that is the case, then I would say that I could only do a maximum of 2 weeks, for which I would have to take it from my annual paid holiday allowance. That's how it is. So perhaps you can see why I would simply be unable to do jury service for any more than 2 weeks, and would do pretty much anything I could to get out of doing it at all.

If the jury system cannot vet the people it chooses to put on a jury better than they have demonstrated in this case, then there lies your problem. This country employs millions of people in the public sector, many of them educated and apparently intelligent, 90% of them could sit on a jury for any length of time without it threatening their jobs, or their livelehoods, (a benefit of trades unions and civil service contracts perhaps). Yet they choose poeple who ask questions like "can we come to a verdict based on reasons that were not presented in court or supported by the evidence".

The system for selecting juries is wrong.

And if there was vetting for juries then defence lawyers may use that to claim bias. The system is probably as good as it could be. As for your job, there are employment laws to protect you. What would happen if you had an accident and are off work. If you were sacked then you would use a tribunal (another form of Justice). As for unions, they don't just apply to public sector employees. I sat on a jury last year for the first time and don't think anyone sat there complaining. There was only one public sector employee and one retired chap. I'm self employed but arranged work around it although I appreciate that not everyone can.

Finally, if your employer refuses to give you time off for Jury service, which presumably includes forcing you to take paid holiday, they can be held in contempt of court!!!

 

[happypig]

Story here: BBC News - Vicky Pryce jury discharged in Huhne speeding points case
They also asked what "beyond reasonable doubt" means.

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is something that always raises questions in training. It's not something you can quantify and I think it's perfectly justified and responsible to ask for clarification.
To make such a judgement means deciding whether the evidence is compelling enough for you to think they did it. You don't have to be 100% certain.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

It is a citizen's duty to sit on a jury if called to do so. If anyone was sacked as a result they would have a strong case of unfair dismissal, and the company concerned would have made itself look a complete tit.