Letter regarding Jury Service system changes

[Saffron]

Hello all

Just a quick thought:

if an employed person is called to jury service, they are only eligible to be paid minimum wage plus travelling expenses. The person's employer may wish to make up the deficit in wages, but are not obliged to do so. I know someone who was being paid ?15.50 an hour as an assistant architect, but when he was called to do jury service, he was only paid minimum wage. This left him severely out of pocket for the whole 2 weeks.

Fortunately, he is a wise, educated, responsible person, who took his duties as a juror seriously. But for some people, such a loss in wages would surely be a serious disincentive to actually deliberate a case fully. We are asking these people to make judgements which affect people's entire lives, and we pay them ?27.50 a day to do it! That's laughable. Maybe making sure that jurors were not out of pocket while doing jury service would encourage a more responsible approach to deliberations.

Worth including in the letter? What do you think?


Saffron

[maria]

hi saffron i totaly agree with you, especialy that once you are asked to do jury service you have to do it unless you have a valid reason not to, they should always pay out for loss of earnings its an insult to lose such amount of money, look at what the barristers judges ect get x

[littlemoo]

re: seting up polls:
It is only possible to choose one option on the polls. This is set by invison (who wrote the boards) and cannot be changed. Therefore we will need to set up a poll for each point when the time comes.
I will sort this out (with a bit of help from Phil) when we are ready for it, but it will almost certainly have to be at a weekend as i don't have that much time during the week.

Also, while I agree in principle with the point Maria has made about only being paid the minimum wage while on jury service(I didn't know that - I though you could recover whatever wages you had lost) - I am concerned about where the extra money is going to come from to pay the extra - the taxpayer, i assume. It would probably also involve a lot more beuracracy in checking that person applying for the money isn't faking what their job is to get more money.
I agree that it is a point worth mentioning in the letter, since, as saffron ponted out:

We are asking these people to make judgements which affect people's entire lives, and we pay them ?27.50 a day to do it! That's laughable. Maybe making sure that jurors were not out of pocket while doing jury service would encourage a more responsible approach to deliberations.

but I can't see most of the recipients of the letter being particlarly responsive to it.

~Jo

[diana_holbourn]

Perhaps we could try and think of some kind of system that wouldn't be too expensive.

What about some kind of tax credit system, to go alongside the current payment system, where jury members could fill in forms and claim money back on a set amount of their income tax for a specified length of time later? That way, they probably wouldn't have a clue how much money they were going to lose, because for all they would know, they might end up getting more back than they lost.

[webmoo]

Hi All,

Just to say I'm still alive and reading this post - I'm just working on site at the moment (Anyone near London Marylebone station? I'm one of the orange bods there this week&#33 and am very tired in the evenings - I'm waking at 5.30 and getting home about 8. Oof!

I'll catch up and update the distibution list and add the polls etc (or find some way of having easier/multiple option polls) when everyone's ready.

I'll probably set up a sub-forum of this one with lots of threads, each with a poll question relating to one issue of debate. Does that sound ok? It's the easiest way to get round the poll limitations and will also put the yes/no discussion for each point into a separate thread.

See ya!

[maria]

thats a great idea sounds a lot easier as well maybe more people will put there vote forward x

[diana_holbourn]

Val, Saffron said something in the thread "Coming home" about how the judge at her husband's trial gave an opinion after the verdict that it was wrong, but there was nothing that could be done about it; he had to pass sentence anyway. I asked if she'd mind you quoting what she said in your letter to back up the point that juries should write down the reasons for their decision, and someone should be designated to scrutinize their arguments and point out flaws in them, and she said you could.

[Snoopyseed]

Originally posted by Saffron@8th March 2005 - 05:08 PM
I am interested in your comment about showing a video about the crime concerned. This would have to be handled extremely delicately in order to ensure a balanced trial. For example, showing a video about a rape victim would surely only bias the jury towards the complainant, and make them feel sympathetic towards her/him.
Perhaps to balance it, a video could be shown of someone who has been wrongly convicted, and has subsequently had their conviction overturned. This might make the jury consider both the nature and seriousness of the alleged offence, and the full impact their decision has on someone's life, and how important it is that they take their responsibility seriously.

Hope you are well,

Saffron

Quoted post

Ok then all lets go for broke here.......

Please note that the following is to do with what i feel should be changed when it come to Rape Trials only.Even though this post is about changing the jury system as a whole perhaps some of the below ideas could also be incorporated into other crimes such as violent ones also.Just simply substitue the word rape for any violent crime you think it would apply in.I have chosen to highlight rape crimes in particular as thats what is close to my heart.


After reviweing the past posts over the past few months

I feel that the compensation system and claims system needs to be reviewed.

How about we scrap the compensation system altogether?
Let me explain why..

When it comes to rape,most vicitms of rape are left feeling ashamed and used,to then offer money for the rape is like throwing salt in the wounds, could some other form of compensation be thought about.like for example having our say in courts? or the chance to help other vicitms going through court proceedings .
This way nobody can be accused of crying rape for the &#39;money pot&#39; <_<
Perhaps expenses could be paid for time taken off work in order to recover from the rape, but no more than the amount of money that would of been earned if the person had of been working instead of sitting at home feeling suicidal so that the mortgage and other living expenses can still be paid for and the true survivor of rape does not suffer any more than she/he has already.


Before a trial takes place ,MYTHS AND FACTS about rape should be discussed with the jury
This should ensure that each member of the jury knows the truth about rape and to dispell any illusions that they have regarding rape that have been highlighted by the media,and word of mouth. Many people think that rape only happens in dark alleys and that you are only raped by strangers, this is in fact quite rare,and the jury should be aware of the reality of rape.
As for the defence there is no need to explain what it is like to be falsy accused of rape as the role of revealing the MYTHS and FACTS of a rape is purly for the purposes of the jury to better understand the crime not to take sides of the victim.The video or short talk would be a non baised account of what happens during a rape because in this society there are many different cultures around and some cultures do not know exactly what a rape is all about or have very very different views on the topic.
It is up to the defence to establish wether their defendant is innocent, they should have no worries with this if they are innocent after all.


Rape Laws should also include anal penetration and thought should be taken into consideration to those that are also raped with objects
(Although im not sure wether this has or has not been included at this moment in time as i cannot find my original files with all the data and info on as ive moved house)

I personally knew of a case whereby a female was gang raped but was raped with a glass bottle, this wasnt classed as rape but we feel that it was, it was unlawful penetration aganist her will, just because it was a bottle instead of a mans genitailia doesnt mean it still wsnt rape.

Before defence lawyers go at survivors in the court room i would like the defence lawyers to read about what its like living with being raped

To experience flashbacks and to spend our lives constantly avoiding our triggers,to be left breathless at our nightmares and the wish that it would all just stop should be looked into.Even though its not a medical condition i DO believe that there is such a thing as POST RAPE HYSTERIA.This would explain why victims do silly things after a rape like not reporting it,or lashing out.So please dont put it to us that if it was really rape we would of reported it straight away .This is simply not true and lawyers often dont realise that it feels like we are being emotionally raped or made to relive the ordeal again and again and this is often why the crime is not reported asap.

Questions like "What colour underwear were you wearing?" and "When did you lose your virginity?" to try and discredit our character should be banned.

I understand the role of a defence lawyer but even if a women were wearing no underwear or M+S baggy support briefs,it has NO bearing on the fact that she was raped.Victims cannot/ must not carry the blame for those monsters that go around attacking people in this way.Even if the vicitim was wearing sexy clothing on the night in question this doesnt give rapists the green light to rape them.

Questions about a victim&#39;s sexual history should be banned.
(Again im not sure if this has changed yet due to my recent house move i cant find all my files)

Even if the vicitim was a prostitute or was promiscuous,when threatened with violence and she may even fear for her life by a man , she too has no right to be raped and has the same rights as a non promiscuous women. No one has the right to go around raping anyone and i think that this needs to be looked at more than wether the women has had a past sex life or not.

As with the above a victims health record must not be brought up in court

UNLESS there is resonable evidence to do so. A women suffering from Depression is no more likely to say she has been raped than a non depressed women.Beleive me if women could avoid going through the court and face a bunch of professionals and one familiar leering face in the crowd she would. No one wants to go to court some people liken it to a second rape,not many people would willingly agree to that.

Using the fact that the vicitim did not fight back to say that it was consensual sex,as a form of defence

Sometimes women are so afraid for there lives that they cannot fight back or it may make a bad situation much worse or even start off violence.The fact a women did not fight back does not make it agreed sex

Those convicted of rape should have the severest sentance possible to send the message out that this crime is not acceptable and those caught will be punished in the severest way possible

The vicitm should be entitiled to legal representation in court,

not just to be seen as a witness,so that she can make a response to anything the defendant or his barrister have to say

The person accused of the crime should not be allowed to use the "I was under the impression she/he consented" defence.

If it was consensual sex vicitms wouldnt be going through the gruelling,embarresing,and horrifying experience of going to court and submitiing themselves to questioning.



Again all of the above does refer to rape cases in court but again the above methods could be applied with ANY crime that is violent such as Murder,Robbery,Assault etc.

I truly think the COMPENSATION SYSTEM needs to be reviwed before the JURY SYSTEM.

This would weed out the genuine claims from the false.
Also dont we have the NO Win no fee systems around?
Why not just go to them if you want compensation and not to a court?
That way only those that want to see genuine rapists/murderes/ect brought to justice and people out there looking for a dip into the &#39;money pot&#39; will have to either forget about making a quick buck or get a higher paid job

Gosh i know this is going to blow because of the above.....but what the hell, its my opinion and i think there are some good and valid points and ways of making a change for the better FOR EVERYONE CONCERNED IN A COURT CASE.

Blessings

Snoopy

[val lavender]

Hi Snoopy

thats interesting stuff, I will certainly be posting my response as soon as I have time to digest what you have put forward.

Are you sure that this post is in the right thread, it seems like something that should be in the general forum.


Regards


Val

[webmoo]

Hi all,

Can I re-iterate that this thread is for discussion of the proposed letter and any changes to it that are required to it, any suggestions for improvements and or modifications etc. General posts about the jury service system should go in the other thread that preceded this one:

http://www.broadcaster.org.uk/invision_for...p?showtopic=155

I just feel that the posts were getting a little off-topic, and would like to keep this thread focussed on the letter itself.

Sue1947 and Rights Fighter - No offence to you, but I have moved your posts into the other thread. I hope you don&#39;t mind.

Thanks all, and keep up the discussion - I really feel this is getting better all the time and we are going to achieve, not necessarily a major change to the justice system, but certainly a good deal of publicity and we will highlight the things that need changing to the media. Hopefully we&#39;ll get some politicians listening&#33;

Cheers

[diana_holbourn]

Originally posted by sue1947@13th March 2005 - 06:52 PM
I would like to add my comments to this discussion on the Jury Service, when my son went to court for being falsely accused of attempted rape, the jury was sworn in, my son noticed that one of the jury had the same surname as his accuser and asked his defence lawyer to find out if this person was related to his accuser.

The judge asked the jurer if they was related to the victim my sons accuser and they said no, no checks was made on this person at all, my son said to his defence QC he was not happy and wanted that jurer moved and somebody else brought in, he was told it was too late, the trial had not even started.

Now i don&#39;t know anything about jury service only that you can be called up for it,
but, i would appreciate somebody explainging to me if they can how this can happen, it seems this particular jurer kept staring at my son and giving him dirty looks.

It was not till after the trial that we found out this jurer had not been checked or asked to be checked out by my sons barrister.

Quoted post

Regarding Sue1947&#39;s comment, I wonder whether it&#39;s possible for someone familiar with relevant sources of information to look into whether it&#39;s in any way common for people to discover that people on the jury know their accuser or the accused, and whether verdicts are influenced by that. If so, maybe we could have a clause in the letter which requests that more stringent checks should take place before trials to try to eliminate the possibility of this happening.

[sue1947]

webmaster no offence taken i&#39;m new to this so was not sure what to do but thanks for letting me know.

[sue1947]

diana i agree with what u have put but its trying to prove it, as in my sons case the judge asked him if he knew the victim and he said no, so how can u tell if he is telling the truth or not.

[diana_holbourn]

They couldn&#39;t prove it, Sue; but they could ensure that all checks are more thorough in the future, by, for instance, doing checks in the records of the close ancestry of jury members with the same names as the accuser or accused to see if they&#39;re related, perhaps, or maybe showing jury members a series of photographs before the court case which include the ones of the accuser and the accused, and if any of them show flickers of recognition when they see those, doubt should maybe be cast on whether they should serve and questions should be asked by a person skilled in finding the truth. After all, hopefully there will be a lot of those around in a courtroom&#33; :-) Maybe there are already mechanisms in place to check these things. I don&#39;t know. I&#39;m wondering if anyone does. If they do, maybe they&#39;d have more of an idea of how things could be improved.

[val lavender]

Hi Sue and Diana

on the subjects of jury members knowing those involved in a case I feel that the following is a possible solution:

As the first step in any trial all the people involved, from either side, accused, accuser(s) and witnesses should be present in the courtroom. The jury would enter the room and take their places in the jury stand.

The jury would then remain in the stand until each member has indicated to the usher that they have had time to view all the concerned parties and vice versa. The jury would then retire and complete a form that states that they are not related to or have links with any of the people involved. The accused, accuser(s) and witnesses would do the same in terms of the jury members and pass the completed forms to the clerk of the court for checking.

At the top of the form there would be a warning that states that failing to declare a relationship or link with a jury member is a crime punishable by a ?5000.00 fine
and a years imprisonment. An alternative warning could state that such a failure is contempt of court, punishable at the judges discresion, though i prefer the first alternative as it would be a fixed penalty for all offenders.

Whilst this would take half an hour, or ?2500.00 working on the basis that a typical Crown Court cost ?30.000.00 for a five hour working day, it would be a lot cheaper than a subsequant retrial.


Regards


Val