Urban Myths

[M61A1]

Harsh ....

https://www.nytimes.com/1983/07/25/sports/golfer-loses-arm-in-plane-accident.html

Also spawned the old joke:

 

How much force does it take to stop an aircraft propeller?

 

Half a Newton.

 

 

[old man emu]

Who was the first to visit Jack Newton in hospital?

 

Joan Armatrading.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

I too wouldn't mind doing my duty Turbs, but anyone connected with emergency work seems to be exempt.I'd like to know on what grounds people like you are challenged by the defence lawyers. Is it because you look like you might know a bit about the law and will make their job that much harder?

It depends a bit on the case. But in general defence lawyers want to get rid of citizens who may have preconceived ideas about the guilt of the defendant.

 

So this might include broad generalisations that exclude plenty of people for no accurate reason but there is not need for them to put forward their reasons.

 

Conservative jurors are not helpful. They often have a higher likelihood of finding guilt rather then giving benefit of the doubt.

 

So Frequently older men are broadly not wanted. Equally higher social class background not preferred and the more educated the less they are wanted as these tend to be more conservative. Members or exmembers of defence forces or police or conservative members of society (doctors, businessmen etc).

 

If the defendant is in a racial minority then they tend to want people of the same racial group and don’t want white conservatives.

 

Overall the selection process tends to lead to juries that are for want of a better term, stacked.

 

The biggest problem cited by a magistrate friend of mine is that broadly juries no longer represent society and no longer are the true “peers” of many defendants. If the defendant had more than a high school education then the average jury will often be significantly less educated and less average intelligence than the defendant.

 

They often have limited to no knowledge or experience of the facts of the crime and frequently are unable to understand complex issues. It all has lead to a number of learned legal people calling for removal of the jury system saying it no longer is capable of doing the job it was designed for.

 

 

[IBob]

It depends a bit on the case. But in general defence lawyers want to get rid of citizens who may have preconceived ideas about the guilt of the defendant.So this might include broad generalisations that exclude plenty of people for no accurate reason but there is not need for them to put forward their reasons.

Conservative jurors are not helpful. They often have a higher likelihood of finding guilt rather then giving benefit of the doubt.

 

So Frequently older men are broadly not wanted. Equally higher social class background not preferred and the more educated the less they are wanted as these tend to be more conservative. Members or exmembers of defence forces or police or conservative members of society (doctors, businessmen etc).

 

If the defendant is in a racial minority then they tend to want people of the same racial group and don’t want white conservatives.

 

Overall the selection process tends to lead to juries that are for want of a better term, stacked.

 

The biggest problem cited by a magistrate friend of mine is that broadly juries no longer represent society and no longer are the true “peers” of many defendants. If the defendant had more than a high school education then the average jury will often be significantly less educated and less average intelligence than the defendant.

 

They often have limited to no knowledge or experience of the facts of the crime and frequently are unable to understand complex issues. It all has lead to a number of learned legal people calling for removal of the jury system saying it no longer is capable of doing the job it was designed for.

Jaba another option would be to select juries as they do in the UK: a pool of potentials jurors are assembled, and from that pool, the jury is randomly selected, and that's it. Nobody gets to say they like/don't like the look of the jurors so selected.

 

Obviously, if any of the jurors are connected in some way to the business at hand, they are replaced (I'm told waving at the accused will do it!)

 

It's still far from perfect, but it cuts out the BS alluded to above.

 

 

[Birdseye]

Having endured a few days on jury duty, I can say that it is one of the most ridiculous systems I have ever encountered. Ditto iBob, the UK selection is far better.

 

Want to avoid getting on a jury? Just wearing a collared shirt and tie should ensure that one of the bottom feeding parasites will object to you.

 

 

[facthunter]

Never been called up in my life. I suppose it would be an experience, but maybe one you could do without. Nev

 

 

[old man emu]

My son (late 20's) recently sat on a jury. The allegation was that the defendant had detained and tied up the complainant, hence the charge was kidnapping. The defendant was a male the complainant was a female.

 

Sounds like anti-domestic violence campaigns would give the Prosecution a lay-down misere. However, the jury soon picked up on the fact that the complainant was using the system to get back at a former partner as her evidence and the evidence of non-police prosecution witnesses had more holes than a pair of laddered fishnet stockings. The jury was in favour of a "Not Guilty" verdict at the first meal adjournment. Unfortunately, they had to sit through a couple of days of faked stories that were clearly prepared and rehearsed before they were asked to give a verdict.

 

At least they didn't make their views obvious. They waited until all the jurors had attended to Nature, then returned to the Court.