Ok...so its bedtime so I will make this a short one- but I have been on Jury Service this week and it has got me to thinking about the institution of the Jury and its role in a criminal trial.
The Jury are basically the "judges" of the trial and decide- on the merits of the evidence and the cases put forward by the Prosecution and Defence- whether the Defendant is guilty or not. They are made up of 12 Laymen which means the normal person on the street with normal common sense who has normally not had a background in legal education.
So far, although I have not been called, it has been so interesting just being with other people who are potential jury members and listening to their opinions of the system... it has been a whole lot of waiting around to be called only to be sent home after 4 hours or sadly more today. But they have come up with some interesting points about the Jury:
The Jury are reimbursed for the time they are in court (if they are employed) and can also claim back costs of standard travel and also food up to a certain amount. This has been paid for out of the tax-payers money- and yet so far, for the 16 of us who are waiting to be selected; this seems to have all been for vain- is the system really operating at its best!? Is there really no easier way in which the Jury can be summoned so that time can be saved, people can stay in work and tax-payers money is not poured down the drain!?
It is difficult to say because what else could they do? Do the ballot before hand and then call everybody in an hour before the trial? but what would happen if they could not get hold of the juror- would they then be in contempt of court? what happens if they could not get in on time? would the costs of holding up the trial be more crippling than keeping that person in all day on the off chance that the beaurocracy is completed in time?
But then my fellow potential jurors also questioned who should actually make up the jurors: should it always be a stubborn 6 men and 6 women?! If a man were to be tried for domestic abuse of some sort with a jury of predominantly women- is that not half the battle lost already? Surely that goes against Art 6 of ECHR - the right to a fair trial?!
But this idea has been bought up before me once before- when my flatmate and I went and watched a court case in the Old Bailey.
It was a murder trial where the victim was a toddler and the defendant a young boy of around 17 (probably about my brothers age) and the one thing that my flatmate said that really stayed with me was that the jury had been made up of 7 women and 5 men- he said that the young lad did not stand a chance in hell against a jury comprised of women- many of whom were probably mothers- and...I think he's right! As a woman- I can safely say that men have a certain objectivity about them that allows them to see past their own feelings which I believe is so important to a fair trial.
The same could be said that there should be a wide range of ages because of the diversity of opinions that can change the outlook and the opinions of others.
However the two points adressed above do seem to be tackled slightly by the Courts- because initially, 16 people are taken into the court to be selected at random down to 12 who are then sworn in as jurors however the prosecution or defence do have the oportunity to question a juror- and it is times like this where too many women can be substituted for a more even number of men.... but still- could this not all be prevent by making categories by gender and then selecting 6 from each!?
Who's to know... especially not me...as for now I must wait until the coming week in the hopes of being assigned.
No comments:
Post a Comment