Letter regarding Jury Service system changes

[val lavender]

Hi All

this is very short notice, but thats how it is. At 11.10 on Friday together with a friend I have a meeeting with Charles Clarke, at his constituancy surgery, to address three main issues. I intend to take this rare opportunity to hand him a letter covering other questions that I want answered.

I shall be pointing out that since I handed him the letter personally there is no doubt that he received it, and that while answers may come from members of his staff I do expect answers within a reasonable time frame.

Are there any questions that forum members would like me to include in this document?

If anyone has any points that they would like to raise with the Home Secretary by this means please let me know, via this thread or by email to vallavender@msn.com and I will add them to the list.

Regards


Val

[diana_holbourn]

OK. I have a bit to say. I hope you don't think I'm being overly-critical. This isn't my intention.

Making my points in chronological order rather than in order of seriousness:

Firstly, you say, "Broadcaster Forum is an internet discussion group ...".
It might be more grammatically neat to call it "The Broadcaster Forum".

"... general jury system on which we would appreciate your thoughts."
I think you ought to specify that we're also hoping for action. In fact, at the end of the letter, it'll be good to specifically request that they inform you after they have considered the matter of any action they envisage might be appropriate, and what they consider the obstacles would be to putting it into practice.

" the jury system has served the United Kingdom well for a considerable time, we feel that changes in society and media coverage of legal matters necessitate the following alterations."

I think there are a few problems with that paragraph. Firstly, it implies, but doesn't specify, that the jury system has served the UK well in the past but doesn't anymore, which begs the questions: What exactly has changed? If you feel it's serving the falsely accused badly, are you saying it served them well in the past? Why would media coverage and changes in society mean it's serving them worse now than it did before? I suspect the problem of uneducated jurors making decisions based on their prejudices or the fact that they just want the whole thing over quickly so can't be bothered to take it seriously rather than on the facts, which has been the main concern here, has been going on for a long time. I think the paragraph needs to be made less abstract, and more specific about what the problem with juries is. The letter in general isn't specific enough to raise serious concern in anyone. They won't necessarily follow the link you've given; in fact, I think there's quite a high possibility that they won't. Therefore, I think you need to give some brief examples of case histories where things have gone badly wrong, or quote from the thread on here where people have been criticizing the system. Even so, you'll need to convey a concern as to why you think this is a widespread problem and not just isolated examples of incompetence or injustice.

"Any person with a dependency on ... prescription drugs ..."

I concur with other people; the requirement to get a letter stating a person's fitness to serve from their GP seems a very good one, but the range of drugs you specify ought to be narrowed, perhaps by using the phrase, "... prescription drugs which may impair their ability to concentrate or to make rational decisions". Some people who have a dependency on certain drugs may be enabled to make perfectly rational decisions on them, and some people may be dependent on certain drugs merely to keep their cholesterol levels down or to keep in check other such physical problems.

"... jurors should produce a written statement, containing their verdict, describing why they have come to their decision, these statements would not contain the jurors name."

I think there ought to be an "and" after the word verdict and a full stop after the word "decision". And where it says, "jurors name" it ought to say, "jurors' names".

You need to specify that you think every single person ought to give an account of their reasoning for their verdict, if that's what you believe. Currently, that's ambiguous.

What could happen is that all jurors could make notes of the main points in their thinking as they're going along, and then write out a brief statement explaining their decision in whatever format they desire, and then dictate it to one of their number who's responsible for typing it out for the purposes of clarity, i.e. to ensure it isn't written in illegible handwriting. It wouldn't be necessary for everyone to be able to type, and in fact, that would exclude many people from taking part who might otherwise make very good jurors. For instance, there are retired people who may have a wealth of accumulated wisdom, but who've never been near a computer and would take a long time to learn to use one.

However, this would not prevent "dominant personalities from taking over", as jurors could simply say, "So-and-so said such-and-such and I agreed", or simply put down the reasons of others in a format that makes it look like their own reasons. However, it would hopefully put them under pressure to think more seriously about the matter.

I don't understand why you would like a computer terminal to be used that would enable the translation of languages other than English. If jurors can't understand English, how can they follow a case that's taking place in English and make a good judgment?!

Anyway, it says, "languages other that English" instead of "than".

I think the explanations of verdicts could be scrutinized and questioned if necessary before the close of the case by a designated person, so there would hopefully be no need to use the reports at a later date. Juries could be asked to reconsider there and then if their verdict seemed dramatically flawed, by someone who merely pointed out the holes in their reasoning.

I like the idea of the intelligence of would-be jury members being assessed before a trial by them being given a set of scenarios to comment on, and only if they pass the test should they be allowed on.

It could be a good idea to have experts on the jury like psychologists, gynaecologists and doctors, two of each, to represent both sides, as was suggested; but I suspect that they also may exhibit prejudices. And it may be objected that this would be expensive.

The grammar, spelling and punctuation in the last paragraph is a bit dodgy; firstly, it says, "If this pilot project is a success there are other areas of British law ...". I think it would be better if you had a comma after success.

Then: "Broadcaster Forum would like to address, please indicate if you are wiling ...".
I think it would sound better if you said, "The Broadcaster Forum".
I think it would be best to have a full stop after address.
And it says wiling instead of willing.

Hope that helps.

[val lavender]

Hi Di

I think that all you said is relevent and worthy of consideration the only matter we have not resolved is how we incorperate everyones ideas into one cohesive document - any suggestions welcome.

Regards


Val

[diana_holbourn]

We'll have to discuss the merits of everyone's ideas, and then just use the ones that seem good to the majority, excluding any that anyone finds particularly objectionable so they wouldn't want their name put to them. Hopefully such measures won't happen much though, if the pros and cons of all ideas are thoroughly discussed first.

[littlemoo]

Originally posted by diana_holbourn@9th March 2005 - 12:12 PM
We'll have to discuss the merits of everyone's ideas, and then just use the ones that seem good to the majority,

Quoted post

There is the option to set up a poll. I'm not quite sure how this works but maybe if Val (or someone else) made a list of the suggestions that have been made, these could be put as poll options and then everyone could vote whether they wanted them including in the letter or not, and if more people do want it than don't want it, it should be included.
That way everyone can be included in the final decisions.
~Jo

[diana_holbourn]

That sounds like a good idea.

It might be best to wait till the arguments have been discussed a bit more, in case anyone thinks something is a good idea but then is swayed by opposing arguments and then changes their minds, or so we can discuss the exact details of proposals first.

[val lavender]

Hi Ladies

I think that the idea of using a poll to establish what we include in the final version is a very good one, can someone ask Philip to set one up as I woulnt know where to start.


Regards


Val

[littlemoo]

Having read your letter I would like to say that broadly speaking I agree with the ideas that the letter contains.

Para 5:

"At this point jurors should produce a written statement"

I especially agree with. As a fairly quiet person myself I would be one of those who may well end up being dominated.

However Para 7:

"Verdict reports could be produced on a pre-printed form via a dedicated computer terminal"

I am not convinced about. There should be some way of producing reports that can be printed out so whether people are happy with computers or not makes no difference. My feeling behind this being; It doesn't require a knowledge of computers to be able to understand and participate fully in a trial and come to a sensible and fair decision. Therefore no one should be barred from participating because they are unwilling to understand computers.

While a computer training course may be a nice option,

Perhaps put 'Any person unable to use this basic technology, and who refuses basic training should not be considered for jury service.' - webmaster, post 3

it is hardly going to practical in terms of cost or time, given that the courts, and therefore the taxpayer, will ultimately have to cover the cost of the training course and the wages being lost while the participant was in training.

It could also a be considered dangerous thing to start banning people from trials. I can understand that dependence on certain drugs may not allow the juror to participate fully in the trial, and this I am cautiously in favour of not allowing them to participate because it would be unfair on the victim and the person on trial.

But to ban someone for their lack of knowledge of computers is not fair and would set a dangerous precedent for the government/judges etc to ban other groups of people because it is more efficient/easier/costs less/any other excuse, to not have them participating.

~Jo

note to webmaster: I hope I am not being unduly critical and am not going to get into trouble for it, but i felt these were important points that needed raising.

[littlemoo]

Originally posted by val lavender@9th March 2005 - 03:06 PM
Hi Ladies

I think that the idea of using a poll to establish what we include in the final version is a very good one, can someone ask Philip to set one up as I woulnt know where to start.
Regards
Val

Quoted post

I'll have a go if you like, I have had to read through all the help stuff to understand if it was possible. I'll put one on the test board (at the bottom of the main forum page) for us to play with, in the next few days. Then we can set a proper one up when you are ready.
~Jo

[littlemoo]

Originally posted by littlemoo@9th March 2005 - 03:17 PM
I'll have a go if you like, I have had to read through all the help stuff to understand if it was possible. I'll put one on the test board (at the bottom of the main forum page) for us to play with, in the next few days. Then we can set a proper one up when you are ready.
~Jo

Quoted post

I know i should be working but it's a quiet afternoon so I've done one right here

The options are nonsense but
Please can you go and test it for me as i'm not sure if it'll work how we want it to or not.

thanks
~Jo

[diana_holbourn]

Sounds good. The only thing is, they're radio buttons, so people can only vote for one option, and once you've voted, it won't let you vote for any more. Is there a way of setting it up so you can vote for more than one?

[littlemoo]

Originally posted by diana_holbourn@9th March 2005 - 03:59 PM
Sounds good. The only thing is, they're radio buttons, so people can only vote for one option, and once you've voted, it won't let you vote for any more. Is there a way of setting it up so you can vote for more than one?

Quoted post

You're right. I didn't notice that. I hoped you could vote for as many as you wanted. There may be an option that Phil can change to allow more options but I'm not particularly hopeful - if it's a thing that's set by the invision people then we can't do anyhting. If not we'll have to make each point that may need changing in the letter into a seperate poll with yes/no options as to whether to change it.
~Jo

[val lavender]

Hi Ladies et al

will everyone please stop worrying that I might be offended by suggestions, comments and alterations. The whole idea was to get a good dialogue going and for everyone to put their ideas into the debate.

So far, I for one, am really pleased that so many ideas have been put forward comments made and alterations proposed and hope that you are all pleased with the reponse as well.

If we can get this concept to work there a numerous subjects that we could address which will increase the reputation of Broadcaster and lead to changes in the system.

All we need to do now is to find a way of doing the admin bit and increase the list of recipients, and locate their email addresses. I feel that we should be aiming for 100+ recipients, which should not be hard to acheive if we cover the media judiciary, senior police officers.politicians and interest groups. I do know that Towermouse was having trouble adding to the list, maybe Phil can look into that if he doesnt mind.


Regards


Val

[littlemoo]

Val,
The list of recipients, Like the letter, can't be added to.

You can't change the document - post in the thread and myself or Val will change it and a new version will go up every few days or as often as is needed/I can get to it. - Webmaster

You must have missed that bit
If we keep posting names, Phil says he will update the list occasionally. (I think he's quite busy at the moment)
~Jo

[maria]

hi all i'm going to make this short and sweet, as i'm not very good at typing, i personaly feel that most of whats been put across is great i don't agree with the computor part at all what about the people with problems like dyslexia ? also i think the drugs issue should be included apart from people who are drugs for health reason NOT drug addicts i myself am on prescribed drugs as i'm in remission from cancer but i can honestly say i don't always think straight i certainly think this issue should be put forward in my mind i know i would do a very good job at jury services normally but not while i'm on the type of medication that i'm on now, val i think you should take as much of this from the boards and print it off exactly how its been put and put it all forward x