Juries, why are jurors treated so badly here in Ireland?

Biffo The Bare

Why is being a juror such a dismal business here in Ireland.
You suddenly become prisoners for the length of the trial if you are picked.
Jurors are a commodity. Cattle to be moved around. Even if you are not picked, it's no picnic either.
I have been on jury duty twice in my life, once recently. I was picked for the jury twice.
It does not matter how important YOUR job is for your company, you have no choice in the matter but to do this task.
I think reform is needed in this area of the legal profession.
A jurors time to them is just as valuable as judges time, or the defence counsel's or the prosecuting counsel's time, so they should be compensated as such, be given the same benefit in kind as the judge or courtroom staff, for example a proper lunch, and as many cups of coffee and biscuits as they need. And monitory compensation that is in line with what the judge gets for sitting there and judging.
What do you think?

Cortina_MK_IV

Just on the last bit, I did it before and every day we were led down the quays and had a really nice lunch. At times of legal argument when we were dismissed there was endless tea and coffee and biscuits. I worked with lads that were happy to do it as it gave them a break from the normal working day and they didn't lose money.

Biffo The Bare

Cortina_MK_IV wrote: »

Just on the last bit, I did it before and every day we were led down the quays and had a really nice lunch. At times of legal argument when we were dismissed there was endless tea and coffee and biscuits. I worked with lads that were happy to do it as it gave them a break from the normal working day and they didn't lose money.

Not the case in Limerick. No endless supply of refreshments.
Anyway my main point is you want lay-people to make legal decisions, pay them as such.
What if the juror is self employed or unemployed? Luckily I was not,

Victor

Biffo The Bare wrote: »

It does not matter how important YOUR job is for your company, you have no choice in the matter but to do this task.

you can be exempted where your attendance would have an excessive effect on the business.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/courtroom/jury_service.html

http://www.courts.ie/Courts.ie/library3.nsf/pagecurrent/936CF234C30E91B8802570990055C520?opendocument&l=en

Biffo The Bare

Victor wrote: »

you can be exempted where your attendance would have an excessive effect on the business.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/courtroom/jury_service.html

http://www.courts.ie/Courts.ie/library3.nsf/pagecurrent/936CF234C30E91B8802570990055C520?opendocument&l=en

Only if the judge allows it. If you are not providing an important community service but your business will be in trouble if you miss one or two weeks, you need to make an extraordinary plea to the judge.

Ash.J.Williams

i got called for jury and i hadn't a bean in my pocket needed a fortune in parking and still got clamped...overall the experience cost a fortune

Little CuChulainn

Biffo The Bare wrote: »

Not the case in Limerick. No endless supply of refreshments.
Anyway my main point is you want lay-people to make legal decisions, pay them as such.
What if the juror is self employed or unemployed? Luckily I was not,

Juries don't make any of the legal decisions, judges do. Juries decide if the evidence is enough to prove guilt.

10000maniacs

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Juries don't make any of the legal decisions, judges do. Juries decide if the evidence is enough to prove guilt.

Splitting hairs?
A jury makes a legal decision on behalf of the judge based on all the evidence supplied in the trial. It is a LEGAL DECISION based on the evidence.
The verdict supplied by the jury sets a legal precedent.
So it is a legal decision.

Stheno

Victor wrote: »

you can be exempted where your attendance would have an excessive effect on the business.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/courtroom/jury_service.html

http://www.courts.ie/Courts.ie/library3.nsf/pagecurrent/936CF234C30E91B8802570990055C520?opendocument&l=en

Biffo The Bare wrote: »

Only if the judge allows it. If you are not providing an important community service but your business will be in trouble if you miss one or two weeks, you need to make an extraordinary plea to the judge.

I was excempted by a court clerk when called for jury service, rang them, explained why I couldn't do it and they took me off the list.

Carawaystick

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

i got called for jury and i hadn't a bean in my pocket needed a fortune in parking and still got clamped...overall the experience cost a fortune

Or you could have parked somewhere with free parking, or got public transport.
If you're in D8 it's hardly very far to the CCJ or 4courts anyway.

haveringchick

Biffo The Bare wrote: »

Not the case in Limerick. No endless supply of refreshments.
Anyway my main point is you want lay-people to make legal decisions, pay them as such.
What if the juror is self employed or unemployed? Luckily I was not,

Are you suggesting that you didn't get lunch and adequate refreshments
Sorry, I don't believe you

Choc Chip

haveringchick wrote: »

Are you suggesting that you didn't get lunch and adequate refreshments
Sorry, I don't believe you

I've not been on a jury but I've heard from a reliable source that dietary requirements might not be accounted for. For example, vegetarians might get a cheese salad but vegans are on their own. That probably depends on where the court is and how fussy you are about your food though!

coylemj

10000maniacs wrote: »

Splitting hairs?
A jury makes a legal decision on behalf of the judge based on all the evidence supplied in the trial. It is a LEGAL DECISION based on the evidence.
The verdict supplied by the jury sets a legal precedent.
So it is a legal decision.

It's not a legal decision, you haven't a clue how the system works here or in the UK if you believe that statement. Even more barmy is your claim that the jury's verdict sets a legal precedent - how can it when no two cases are the same?

The jury don't get to tease out legal issues and nothing they decide has any implications for other criminal cases, no matter how similar they may be. All of the legal issues are trashed out by the judge and the lawyers, usually in the absence of the jury since such legal argument often involves a discussion about the admissibility of evidence which may or may not be allowed to be heard by the jury so they are not usually allowed to be present when that argument is going on.

So not alone do jurors not get to make any legal decisions, they are almost never in the courtroom when legal decisions are being made - by the judge.

cml387

I've served on ajury, it wasn't exactly fun but it didn't have any financial implications. As staed if you have good reasons you can be exempted.

Essentially we are citizens of a basically well run state (compared to many). We have rights which we hear about all the time, there are also responsibilities and jury service is one of them.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Can you just lie and say (for example) that your a racist. Or thst you had a pint with the accused once or some other made up story?

Victor

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

Can you just lie and say (for example) that your a racist.

You could, but what if all the parties are of the same race, ethnic or other grouping?

Or thst you had a pint with the accused once or some other made up story?

They'll just send you back to the panel and call you for a different jury.

haveringchick

Choc Chip wrote: »

I've not been on a jury but I've heard from a reliable source that dietary requirements might not be accounted for. For example, vegetarians might get a cheese salad but vegans are on their own. That probably depends on where the court is and how fussy you are about your food though!

When your sitting on a jury, your brought out to a restaurant for lunch. Most restaurants now cater for all dietary requirements
The OP is whining because he feels that the jurors should be paid as much as the legal professionals, all of whom studied for at least 5 years before completing an apprenticeship
Being picked for jury duty is a privilege of being s citizen of a free and democratic society
How many millions around the world would jump at the chance

Galadriel

I've been picked for jury duty twice, the first time I didn't get called for a case so went back to work by lunch time each day, the second time I got called for a case that lasted 3 weeks, I found it very interesting and thought we where treated great - we got a 2 course lunch every day, sandwiches if we went past 6pm in our deliberations etc.

carrolls

coylemj wrote: »

It's not a legal decision, you haven't a clue how the system works here or in the UK if you believe that statement. Even more barmy is your claim that the jury's verdict sets a legal precedent - how can it when no two cases are the same?

The jury don't get to tease out legal issues and nothing they decide has any implications for other criminal cases, no matter how similar they may be. All of the legal issues are trashed out by the judge and the lawyers, usually in the absence of the jury since such legal argument often involves a discussion about the admissibility of evidence which may or may not be allowed to be heard by the jury so they are not usually allowed to be present when that argument is going on.

So not alone do jurors not get to make any legal decisions, they are almost never in the courtroom when legal decisions are being made - by the judge.

What?
In a jury trial, he prosecution and defence counsel's present the evidence, question the witnesses, the judge is an impartial moderator on the proceedings. The jury are the only ones who can decide on the guilt or innocence of the defendant based on the evidence presented. The jury makes the ultimate legal decision, nobody else.
The judge then sentences the defendant based on the legal decision made by the jury.

MarkAnthony

carrolls wrote: »

What?
In a jury trial, he prosecution and defence counsel's present the evidence, question the witnesses, the judge is an impartial moderator on the proceedings. The jury are the only ones who can decide on the guilt or innocence of the defendant based on the evidence presented. The jury makes the ultimate legal decision, nobody else.
The judge then sentences the defendant based on the legal decision made by the jury.

Juries are arbiters of fact, Judges of law. Juries do not make legal decisions that's why the jury is lead out every time a legal decision needs to be made.

EDIT: Some expansion on the above.

I wish to present evidence that I obtained (as a member of AGS) that was obtained illegally but not in breach of the defendant's constitutional rights. The jury is lead out and the legal argument happens, the judge decides to allow the evidence. The jury is lead back in and I present my evidence that the defendant is actually an alien from the planet Zargon. The jury decide I'm a looney and discount the evidence I present in arriving at their decision. Legal decision made by Judge, decision on the factual nature of the evidence made by Jury.

EDIT 2: Yes more biscuits is definitely the answer, when isn't it?

Little CuChulainn

carrolls wrote: »

What?
In a jury trial, he prosecution and defence counsel's present the evidence, question the witnesses, the judge is an impartial moderator on the proceedings. The jury are the only ones who can decide on the guilt or innocence of the defendant based on the evidence presented. The jury makes the ultimate legal decision, nobody else.
The judge then sentences the defendant based on the legal decision made by the jury.

Judges make legal decisions, juries make decisions on whether things are true or false. They have no training or specialist knowledge so why would they be paid as highly as those that do?

MarkAnthony

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Judges make legal decisions, juries make decisions on whether things are true or false. They have no training or specialist knowledge so why would they be paid as highly as those that do?

If they're on the dole they're probably being paid more than the barristers :pac:

Actually circuit court and above, those lads (and lasses) are loaded.

esforum

10000maniacs wrote: »

Splitting hairs?
A jury makes a legal decision on behalf of the judge based on all the evidence supplied in the trial. It is a LEGAL DECISION based on the evidence.
The verdict supplied by the jury sets a legal precedent.
So it is a legal decision.

what a load of tosh, put the dictionary away and we can all go back to the judge making legal decisions as the resident expert.

Also, and its an important one, the jury are not the sole caretakers of verdicts. Judges can and do direct that a person be found innocent

In the CCJ the lunch is very good, you can order of the restaurants menu and theres non stop refreshments. Not much in the way of entertainment though, not even a newspaper

MarkAnthony

esforum wrote: »

Not much in the way of entertainment though, not even a newspaper

Less female devil ogling for certain

Carawaystick

haveringchick wrote: »

The OP is whining because he feels that the jurors should be paid as much as the legal professionals, all of whom studied for at least 5 years before completing an apprenticeship

But no matter how much study the legal pros did or do, they are unable to do jury duty...

Choc Chip

haveringchick wrote: »

When your sitting on a jury, your brought out to a restaurant for lunch. Most restaurants now cater for all dietary requirements
The OP is whining because he feels that the jurors should be paid as much as the legal professionals, all of whom studied for at least 5 years before completing an apprenticeship
Being picked for jury duty is a privilege of being s citizen of a free and democratic society
How many millions around the world would jump at the chance

You're not always brought out to a restaurant that caters for everyone - we're not in Dublin. However, this isn't really an issue compared to the comparative payment of jurors. I don't believe that you should lose out for sitting on a jury, but I also don't agree that remuneration should be comparative with legal professionals (if that is more than you normally earn).

Gaygooner

I was called once, picked. The previous trial proceeded so we were discharged the next day. Got two lunches. V pleasant. Wasn't keen on case though- alleged sexual assault of a minor

c montgomery

Choc Chip wrote: »

You're not always brought out to a restaurant that caters for everyone - we're not in Dublin. However, this isn't really an issue compared to the comparative payment of jurors. I don't believe that you should lose out for sitting on a jury, but I also don't agree that remuneration should be comparative with legal professionals (if that is more than you normally earn).

So vegans can bring their own lunch, not really a big deal!
Do you go looking for things to get upset about?

Choc Chip

c montgomery wrote: »

So vegans can bring their own lunch, not really a big deal!
Do you go looking for things to get upset about?

I believe I pointed out in my own post that this "isn't really an issue".

The Sun King

Got called once. Rang the woman at the court and explained my illness was flared up at the time, and the transportation to and from would cost me 5 hours a day and half my social welfare at the time.

No bother, sez she.

Avatar MIA

Only ever called once, and could not attend for work reasons. Disappointed really. Would like to see how the system works, but, as above, not a case dealing with a sexual assault on a child.

So, if you've an excuse you can get out of it. I've also been the one to make contact with the courts to say X person couldn't attend for work reasons.

Gaygooner

The judge seemed v accommodating when the two juries were being formed. Any excuse was entertained. I was picked for the first but stood down by prosecution- do I look like a scobe???

Avatar MIA

Gaygooner wrote: »

The judge seemed v accommodating when the two juries were being formed. Any excuse was entertained. I was picked for the first but stood down by prosecution- do I look like a scobe???

More likely to be excused (recused?) if dressed in a suit or so the myth goes.

Gaygooner

Avatar MIA wrote: »

More likely to be excused (recused?) if dressed in a suit or so the myth goes.

I wore a hoodie

koutoubia

Recently spent a few weeks on Jury duty in The High Court.
First thing we had to do when we arrived in was pick our lunch from the menu and it was cooked freshly st lunchtime.
As much coffee,tea and biscuits as you wanted.
It was explained that leaving the building while we were 'on duty' wasn't allowed.
This was obviously in Dublin
We were paid by our employer and were told that if our employer had an issue with any of us getting paid or being on duty they could make an appointment with the judge.

Was interesting to see the system at work.The whole jury got on great together until we had to start debate the case and things got heated.

Because of the case and everything that surrounded it I view it as a life experience.

Thargor

I never got called, does your name have to be on a list anywhere? I wouldn't mind doing it once.

Gaygooner

Thargor wrote: »

I never got called, does your name have to be on a list anywhere? I wouldn't mind doing it once.

Electoral registrar

OldNotWIse

Biffo The Bare wrote: »

Why is being a juror such a dismal business here in Ireland.
You suddenly become prisoners for the length of the trial if you are picked.
Jurors are a commodity. Cattle to be moved around. Even if you are not picked, it's no picnic either.
I have been on jury duty twice in my life, once recently. I was picked for the jury twice.
It does not matter how important YOUR job is for your company, you have no choice in the matter but to do this task.
I think reform is needed in this area of the legal profession.
A jurors time to them is just as valuable as judges time, or the defence counsel's or the prosecuting counsel's time, so they should be compensated as such, be given the same benefit in kind as the judge or courtroom staff, for example a proper lunch, and as many cups of coffee and biscuits as they need. And monitory compensation that is in line with what the judge gets for sitting there and judging.
What do you think?

Are you for real?

Also, if I'm ever unfortunate enough to be sitting in a dock, I'd hope I'd have people on the jury who were't so wound up on what jury service can do for them. It's not about you - it's about the person in the dock who is innocent until proven guilty, who faces losing his or her liberty and who is entitled to a hearing in front of a jury of his peers.

OldNotWIse

haveringchick wrote: »

When your sitting on a jury, your brought out to a restaurant for lunch. Most restaurants now cater for all dietary requirements
The OP is whining because he feels that the jurors should be paid as much as the legal professionals, all of whom studied for at least 5 years before completing an apprenticeship
Being picked for jury duty is a privilege of being s citizen of a free and democratic society
How many millions around the world would jump at the chance

Exactly. At least 3 years doing a basic law degree. BL course on top of that which is not cheap. Pupillage for up to 2 years and scratching out a living for the first 5-7 years. At least 12 years as Junior before even being considered for Senior Counsel, and even at that having to be nominated by your peers. I don't see why someone performing a civic duty (and likely still getting paid by their employer anyway) should be paid anywhere near the same.

OldNotWIse

Biffo The Bare wrote: »

Not the case in Limerick. No endless supply of refreshments.
Anyway my main point is you want lay-people to make legal decisions, pay them as such.
What if the juror is self employed or unemployed? Luckily I was not,

The whole point is that you are being judged by a jury of your peers. They are not making "legal decisions" that require skilled knowledge of the law. They are being presented with evidence and asked to weigh it up to see if the standard of proof has been met. Reasonable doubt or the balance of probabilities. You are being asked to assess credibility of witnesses and evidence. You don't need legal skill to do this. You just need to be living in the real world and have a brain.

carrolls

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Are you for real?

Also, if I'm ever unfortunate enough to be sitting in a dock, I'd hope I'd have people on the jury who were't so wound up on what jury service can do for them. It's not about you - it's about the person in the dock who is innocent until proven guilty, who faces losing his or her liberty and who is entitled to a hearing in front of a jury of his peers.

And the Judge and solicitors do it all out of the goodness in their hearts. Makes me weep.:pac:

JigglyMcJabs

10000maniacs wrote: »

Splitting hairs?
A jury makes a legal decision on behalf of the judge based on all the evidence supplied in the trial. It is a LEGAL DECISION based on the evidence.
The verdict supplied by the jury sets a legal precedent.
So it is a legal decision.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

mickdw

As a self employed person, I find the system scandalous.
A few weeks unpaid would likely ruin me.

carrolls

OldNotWIse wrote: »

The whole point is that you are being judged by a jury of your peers. They are not making "legal decisions" that require skilled knowledge of the law. They are being presented with evidence and asked to weigh it up to see if the standard of proof has been met. Reasonable doubt or the balance of probabilities. You are being asked to assess credibility of witnesses and evidence. You don't need legal skill to do this. You just need to be living in the real world and have a brain.

So the general attitude in this legal forum is that the key decision in a jury case is not a legal decision, just an interpretation based on the evidence presented by "legal" experts. Regardless, I am swaying with the OP's opinion that if the jury is a key part in the process, and they are legally bound to carry out this task, they should receive comparable compensation to every other professional in the courtroom.

MarkAnthony

carrolls wrote: »

So the general attitude in this legal forum is that the key decision in a jury case is not a legal decision, just an interpretation based on the evidence presented by "legal" experts.

You're still not getting this which is fair enough.

The legal decisions are made by the legal people. The Judge and barristers. Solicitors are there to look pretty, many a time it's not actually a solicitor it's a paralegal and believe me, you don't want to be paid what I was paid. :pac:

Evidence is presented by all an sundry, guards, experts, scum bags, random people who where there. Juries decide who's credible and whos not. Before they get to do that the legal people may have stopped a piece of evidence getting to the Jury.

Watch 12 Angry men - the Black and white version, outstanding film.

carrolls wrote: »

Regardless, I am swaying with the OP's opinion that if the jury is a key part in the process, and they are legally bound to carry out this task, they should receive comparable compensation to every other professional in the courtroom.

They're not professionals though. What your suggesting is when you build a house the painter and decorator should get the same money as the architect.

Mervyn Skidmore

mickdw wrote: »

As a self employed person, I find the system scandalous.
A few weeks unpaid would likely ruin me.

You will be excused if you are self employed and would suffer financially from doing the service. It'd be great if people informed themselves before getting outraged at everything.

carrolls

MarkAnthony wrote: »

They're not professionals though. What your suggesting is when you build a house the painter and decorator should get the same money as the architect.

A lot of the jurors are professionals, a lot are self employed professionals.
A lot of these professionals work for companies that can ill afford this situation.
The company that the juror works for shouldn't be forced to pay for up to two weeks forced leave of absence. Any juror should be compensated BY THE STATE at a rate comparable to the other professionals in the courtroom. They are equal cogs in the wheels of justice after all.

MarkAnthony

carrolls wrote: »

A lot of the jurors are professionals, a lot are self employed professionals.
A lot of these professionals work for companies that can ill afford this situation.
The company that the juror works for shouldn't be forced to pay for up to two weeks forced absence. Any juror should be compensated BY THE STATE at a rate comparable to the other professionals in the courtroom. They are equal cogs in the wheels of justice after all.

Do you think the state would magic up this money?

Companies and individuals would simply pay it in tax. There are many rights to being a citizen or conducting business in the state, there are responsibilities as well. One of them is Jury service. Where the burden is onerous the person can be excused.

They're also not an equal cog. They're a lay person pulled in to do their civic duty. The others are doing a job.

carrolls

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Do you think the state would magic up this money?

Companies and individuals would simply pay it in tax. There are many rights to being a citizen or conducting business in the state, there are responsibilities as well. One of them is Jury service. Where the burden is onerous the person can be excused.

They're also not an equal cog. They're a lay person pulled in to do their civic duty. The others are doing a job.

Yes they are. Their time is as valuable or even more valuable to their respective companies and themselves. As you can figure, I don't buy that civil duty bull$hit. No sir.

MarkAnthony

carrolls wrote: »

As you can figure, I don't buy that civil duty bull$hit. No sir.

Well then there is very little to talk about then. Unfortunately more and more people think the way you do which is actually why it seems we're going down the pan rather than the constant accusation that we're more violent, or there is more crime in the State, when actually there is less.

Of course we could do it your way, but as I say you're simply going to pay it in tax, every day, rather than giving up 2 weeks in a lifetime, almost certainly at most.

Victor

carrolls wrote: »

A lot of the jurors are professionals, a lot are self employed professionals.
A lot of these professionals work for companies that can ill afford this situation.
The company that the juror works for shouldn't be forced to pay for up to two weeks forced leave of absence. Any juror should be compensated BY THE STATE at a rate comparable to the other professionals in the courtroom. They are equal cogs in the wheels of justice after all.

Surely a balance would be to have the employee paid their normal pay, but the Courts Service pay the employer minimum wage fo the hours that the employee attends + reasonable travel time.

It might focus some minds in the Courts Service.