You'll love this one...!! A book club & more discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Off Topic Chat
>
Whatcha Doin'?
Wow Marnie! That's hardcore - I can imagine that being a hard trial to take part in and I bet difficult to "leave at the court" too. I remember being called up for jury duty while I was still at school - I'd just turned 18 and it was during my A-Levels. I applied to defer because it was so close to my exams. I bet that will be my one and only chance at it.
Nice to see you back Marnie! That sounds pretty tough.. I'm glad we don't have jury duty here.I actually only know it from tv, and I'm not sure how accurate that is. Is it your job as a jury to say if someone's guilty or not?
And I never knew the UK has jury duty!
Yes, we had to decide guilt .Fortunately, it was pretty clear. Even the defense attorney, afterwards, admitted his case was a loser.One of the victims was so traumatized she needed a therapy dog to help testify...it was a yellow lab which made me think of the last Toppler and reading The Art of Racing in the Rain.
It made me smile.
I was called only once for jury duty but fortunately the defendant either pleaded guilty or opted for trial by judge only. We got as far as the courtroom when the defense called for an audience with the judge. When they came back into the courtroom, we were all dismissed. Thank goodness! Do they have any kind of debriefing for the jurors after they listen to all that traumatic evidence?
I've been called twice for jury duty - within two years, so I could have declined the second time, but I did both. There was no debriefing when I did it (about ten years ago). But if you have any condition or experience that makes it difficult or distressing for you to listen to traumatic stuff, you can be excused from doing it. Or if you are distressed at any time during the case, you can put up your hand and get permission to leave, I think. No one did this, so I don't know how that works.
They actually offered us a counselor for debriefing and both layers came and talked to us after.I tried to get off. During questioning while they picked the jury. The defense asked if anyone didn't want to be on the jury. I raised my hand. I asked him after why he didn't excuse me.
He said " because the three people behind you were worse for my case."
The judge only excused people for hardship and pre planned vacations. We had 3 alternatives so I probably could have " raised my hand" like Gail said but after hearing the victims I felt it was necessary to stay for them.
That's really good that they offered counselors.With the cases I did, I think I was more shocked by the attitudes of the other jurors than by the details of the case. One was an attempted rape, and there was a loud, opinionated chap who'd elected himself to be our jury leader, or whatever it's called, and he was making fun of the victim to us, acting like she asked for it, or that she was making it up. To begin with, I was the only juror saying the guy was guilty. So I'm glad I stayed too, because he was so obviously guilty, and eventually we found him guilty, although the loudmouth jury leader guy was unconvinced and dismissive, and was genuinely astonished when the judge then read out the guy's previous convictions, where this sort of thing had happened many times before!
I forgot you were doing jury duty Marnie. it sounds like it was a horrible case but you're completely right. You've helped the victims enormously to be able to tell their story and to see people say it's not okay what happened to them and that the guy should be punished. It helps give them some closure. Really good they offered you councillors to debrief.My mum got jury duty once for an arson. But she's the only person I know. Mind you, were such a small territory and a lot of our cases are judge only in the smaller courts.
The jury duty "call up" in the UK is linked to our National Insurance numbers and is almost like a lottery. I wonder how they do it really though as surely if it was just random like that, on occasions criminals would be called up to do jury duty?!? I also wonder about the really big cases and whether the jury is picked in the same way for those as with a theft or fraud or drug offences. I know in the movies (and by the sound of Marnie's experience) that once a group of jurors are present, then they are whittled down further by the lawyers. I'm not sure whether this happens here in the UK or not.Did you experience this Gail at the ones you went to?
I guess that the lesser cases, there is less of a need for debrief and/or counselors whereas the more violent cases would definitely need it.
@Peggy - so who is on the jury for court cases in the Netherlands? Where do they get those people from if they are not called up as volunteers?
We have no jury. Just the judge (or sometimes several judges, in the very severe cases), and no 'regular' people are involved in any part of the sentencing. It's the judge who decides if someone is guilty or not, and also what their sentence will be. Marnie, it seems like a case you had is something that really interferes with your life. The stories of victims, but also the time and effort you have to invest in it.
That's interesting to hear Peggy! I like to find out how things work in other parts of the world.I can't imagine what it would be like being on the jury for a really high profile case - it must be so hard especially as you have the added media opinions and "facts". And these cases can last months!
I was on jury duty in the US during the last Toppler for a rape case. Originally there were about 50 potential jurors in the courtroom (and 50 plus 50 plus 50 in other courtrooms for other cases). It takes all day to choose a jury among that group.Fourteen are originally chosen (by lottery) and interviewed by the judge in the presence of the remaining potentials, the accused and the lawyers.
One by one, the attorneys and the judge have the option to eliminate anyone without explanation. The Judge appears to eliminates based on hardship or obvious prejudice. The lawyers eliminate for "who knows what"..."the color of your clothing".
In the end all three parties agree on fourteen people. The accused is tried by "a jury of 12 of his peers", the remaining two are considered alternates in case a juror has an emergency. All fourteen do not know who will be removed from the jury until all the evidence has been deliberated and closing arguments presented. Those two are removed based on a lottery and leave the court not knowing the final decision of the court.
Sarah, yes, I think we were whittled down by the lawyers, although I'm not sure what the criteria were. The first time I did jury duty, I was on the jury for two cases, both with the same defence lawyer, and before the second case, the defence lawyer questioned whether I should be in the jury, because I'd already been on the jury for one of his cases, but the judge said this didn't matter and overruled it.It does interfere with your life when you do jury duty. It feels like a huge responsibility, as you know that your decision will impact greatly on people's lives, so you don't want to make a mistake. And you're not allowed to talk to anyone about it until the case is over. I remember thinking a lot about it in the evenings and weighing up the evidence.
It makes me wonder how easily people in a jury are influenced by what they hear or read outside of court, and may not be true. And how their own opinions of a case prior to trial influence them. Or the influence of family and friends. And I wonder if this would be very different for a judge, if he/she is better in being very objective or experiences the same issues.Can a judge overrule the jury's decision?
We weren't interviewed though. I've never heard of jurors being interviewed. What sort of questions did they ask you, Almeta?
Almeta wrote: "I was on jury duty in the US during the last Toppler for a rape case. Originally there were about 50 potential jurors in the courtroom (and 50 plus 50 plus 50 in other courtrooms for other cases)...."Thanks for the explanation Almeta, interesting! It's not at all like I thought, with getting a letter summoning you to be on the jury and that's the end of it. Is it the same procedure in every state?
Yes, a judge can overrule a jury's decision.
Same procedure throughout the US. They tell you not to talk about the case or listen to the news or anything that may affect your view of the case. Or so I understand. It really is like in the movies. The lawyers are trying to pick jurors they feel will be sympathetic to their side. It's basically like 2 sides picking players to play a game of kick ball.
Gail wrote: "We weren't interviewed though. I've never heard of jurors being interviewed. What sort of questions did they ask you, Almeta?""Have you or a family member ever been a victim of a crime?" "What type of crime? Do you have any knowledge of this case prior to coming to court?" "Do you know any law enforcement officers?" "Do you think that those experiences and associations would influence you in fairly judging the person in this particular case?" And such...
These responses are what help the lawyers determine whether a person really will be impartial, or if not, will then be eliminated from jury duty in this trial. (That by-the-way dose not get you off the hook...that same day you must report back to the "office" and can be assigned to another jury selection process in another case.)
In the end each person verbally agrees that despite their history they will keep an open mind and judge the case based strictly on the evidence presented, without prejudice.
Gail wrote: "Yes, a judge can overrule a jury's decision."In the US, I don't know if this is exactly true...BUT...
A jury does not determine sentencing, and does not hear the judges decided punishment. (Or at least not in the cases in which I was a part. That sensational courtroom drama seems to be only in the movies!)
The jury only decides guilt or innocence. I think that for a judge to over-rule a jury's decision, the jury itself must be deemed incompetent. The judge's wisdom can decide on a light or harsh sentence, however.
Peggy wrote: "It makes me wonder how easily people in a jury are influenced by what they hear or read outside of court, and may not be true. ..."Jurors are instructed to not seek media information about the case or personal information about the accused. Laptops and sell phones are not allowed in court (so a juror can't suddenly look something up.)
This is why you may hear of a case in which the crime was committed in one region of the country is actually tried far from that area. The people may be overly aware of the case in their neighborhood, but in a state on the other side of the country...no one ever heard of it.
AND as Gail and Travis said, jurors are not to discuss the case with family and friends while serving.
But that would be kind of hard, wouldn't it? You may have heard lots of things in the media about a case before you even know you're in the jury. And once you're in a jury, and the trial consists of multiple sessions, it seems almost impossible to avoid newspapers and the news in between sessions in a time where media is everywhere. Even if you don't go actively looking for information, you're bound to come across it, especially in cases that attract a lot of media attention.
Welcome to the United States Peggy. Not everything makes sense all the time. Sometimes in the battle for equal rights or checks and balances we hurt ourselves. Of course in this day and age media will influence people one way or another
I think we had to agree that if we knew of anything that would stop us being impartial (such as knowing any of the witnesses) we had to declare it. And of course we had to swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.Of course, though, people are human and everyone has their own experiences and prejudices. On the second case, when the guy on trial appeared, certain jurors snickered and said afterwards that they could tell just from looking at him that he was guilty (he was short, stocky, rough-looking, with a few teeth missing). This was before the guy had even spoken, other than to swear to tell the truth. These jurors were upper middle class, and were prejudging him on what he looked like. It's a shame, but then the jury is supposed to be a random mix of people, and that is what people can be like. The lack of logical thinking concerned me - someone actually said 'if someone felt intimidated by this guy, this means he was deliberately being intimidating'.
Peggy wrote: "You may have heard lots of things in the media about a case before you even know you're in the jury...."I think that is why the potential jurors are asked questions about their exposure to the case. The attorneys can then boot them out, if they wish, based on the answer.
As for media bombardment, you are correct, it can be unavoidable. The "change of venue" tries to address some of this. Except for those extreme cases, most trials are only of regional interest.
Everyone is placed on "the honor system"...but don't forget a single judge is in the same boat.
The media is one of my bugbears! Details of cases and crimes are broadcast everywhere way before a case goes to trial like you say Peggy. And while people can say that they will be impartial, I think it's extremely hard not to be influenced by what we see and hear. And that's without adding in News broadcaster biases and the sensationalism that goes in to news reports! I always think the media jumps the gun. A few years back, there was a girl murdered in Bristol around Xmas time and her neighbour was arrested for questioning. He was plastered all over the news, they dug in to his past and published it along with his photo on the front page of all the national and local papers. And guess what? It wasn't him after all! So his reputation was destroyed overnight for nothing. Personally, I think we should be told that an arrest has been made on the news in these big cases but that's it until the case goes to court.
@Gail: Wow, that's really bad. But not much you can I suppose, except having 'blind' trials in which the jury can not see the accused, but then again I suppose that facial expressions and other types of non-verbal language are also important in reaching a decision. Does a jury need to be unanimous?I think there are several scientific studies done on this topic by the way, also showing that good-looking people receive lower sentences than not-good-looking people. It seems that judges are not completely objective either, even if it's not consciously done so.
Regardless of the system. Judge jury or both. Sonetimes the guilty are let free the innocent locked up and hopefully most of the time justice is served. There is no perfect system until we havr technology to read minds to see if a person is guilty or not. We need vampire judges.
Very good point Travis. But then our minds aren't reliable either. Our subconscious has the ability to believe in something (and think it's truth) even when it isn't - "false memory syndrome" springs to mind. You only have to think about how two people talk about a holiday experience that they've both had together to see how different the stories can be (and both will swear blind they are telling the truth) and they are (or at least their subconscious thinks so).And Travis, I think you have another great idea for a book series there - Vampire Judge?!?
Sarah wrote: "The media is one of my bugbears! Details of cases and crimes are broadcast everywhere way before a case goes to trial like you say Peggy. And while people can say that they will be impartial, I thi..."I agree!
Facebook also plays a big part in this. A year or so ago a group of young guys (18-20 or so) seriously abused a single guy (they didn't know each other) after partying for a night somewhere. There were camera images that were posted online with a group of guys on it who were supposedly involved in the attack, and this pictures with all the guys recognizable was shared by hundreds or maybe thousands of people on Facebook, already stating the guys were guilty, and this all before the police even had a chance to find them or talk to them. In the end it turned out that they (or at least several of them) were involved, but it seems that almost the whole country forgot about the 'innocent, until proven otherwise' principle. It was like a witch hunt or something.
Indeed, human judgment and memory is very fallible, and that applies to everyone, from jury to judge.
Peggy wrote: "Does a jury need to be unanimous?..."In the cases in which I was involved, the jury's decision had to be unanimous.
Often an accused is charged with several versions of the crime and/or additional crimes at the same time. All of these accusations are addressed and decision must be agreed upon for each individual charge, before they the jury is released.
For instance in the rape trial, there was a kidnapping charge, a rape charge, an intent to do bodily harm with a weapon, drug possession.
The human mind is quite a machine. See stockholme syndrome. Give Kevin Hearne time and vampire judges are sure to pop up
Peggy, sometimes there just needs to be a majority vote among the jury, but with more serious cases it needs to be unanimous. The attempted rape case needed the jury to be unanimous. I remember the judge explaining this to us very clearly. If we were saying he was guilty of attempted rape it had to be unanimous. If we were just finding him guilty of breaking into the victim's house, that didn't have to be unanimous. (as Almeta said, there are different levels of alleged crimes you have to decide upon, and they all have really specific definitions).
Travis of NNY wrote: "The human mind is quite a machine. See stockholme syndrome. Give Kevin Hearne time and vampire judges are sure to pop up"
Well yes!!!! Leif Helgarson, Atticus' nighttime vampire attorney can get himself a promotion!☻
Here in Aus recently few jurors and juries have been dismissed due to them commenting on the case on Facebook, and/or accessing information/reports online about the case they were sitting on. The benefit of juries is that you do have to prove to a group of people the person is guilty. And these people should come from a range of backgrounds and experiences, so hopefully prejudices won't impact everyone. You can argue that judges tend to come from a particular type of background themselves and so can display their own biases too.
Looks like in Aus depends on the state and depends on the court and depends on the judges instructions whether it has to be a unanimous or majority decision.
I decided I needed a new hair style, so chop chop went the scissors last. Now, I'm not sure I like it. It gave me a fright when I turned on the bathroom light this morning. Maybe I just need to get used to it. Wine group tonight, so I'll see what kinds of comments my friends make.
Did you do it yourself Janice? I've had some awful haircuts at hairdressers when there's been a miscommunication of what I wanted. I've never cut my own hair before though. Now colouring?!? Oh boy! I used to have black hair during my Goth years and then one day I decided I didn't want it anymore. So I went to the hairdresser to ask whether they could dye it back to my original colour. They did some tests on some of my hair and said no it wasn't possible as the black colouring at the ends had built up so much from repeated dying. So I thought I'd take things in to my own hands. I bought a bottle of bleach and did it myself. Oh dear! I ended up with peroxide blonde roots, then yellow, then orange, then brown, then black - I was all stripey and very very upset! So I went to the hairdresser (not the same one as I had consulted) and had to spend an enormous amount of money getting it fixed and I was in the hairdressers the whole day! Needless to say, my hair colour is au naturale now!
Happily spending the day cleaning and reading before the toppler. Great news I got a new job just confirmed.
Congrats Tasha!I'm sure it looks great Janice, just something that needs getting used to for a bit :)
I'm sure you will get used to your new hair style Janice :) Is it much shorter than before?Sarah, that sounds like quite the hair colouring disaster! I am quite lucky in that I have not had too many hair disasters so far. I did have a bit of a mini disaster a few years ago when I had highlighted hair and tried to dye it back to its original light brown colour after becoming bored with being blonde. I did it myself and the packet said it was ok to use on highlighted hair but rather than going back to brown, it ended up a hideous shade of orange! Luckily, a much darker shade of brown fixed it. I kept my hair its natural colour for a while after that but have been dying it red for the past few years. That's probably the biggest hair disaster I have had, apart from when I asked the hairdresser just to take a tiny trim off the ends and she ended up cutting about 5 inches off! Grrrr!
Congratulations on your new job Tasha! :)
They always told me onky take off a little at a time cuz you cant put it back. Luckily hair is like the front lawn. It will grow back
I trimmed my bangs last night and I swear they were straight but they look a little wobbly this morning. I think I will be attempting to rectify when I get home tonight!
Janice wrote: "I decided I needed a new hair style, so chop chop went the scissors last. Now, I'm not sure I like it. It gave me a fright when I turned on the bathroom light this morning. Maybe I just need to get used to it. Wine group tonight, so I'll see what kinds of comments my friends make. ..."I scare hairdressers with my hair style requests!
My favorite is a "swing bob". I'm usually told "I don't know how to do the latest styles". (A swing bob has been around since the 20's)
I also sometimes let my hair grow and then have a hard time getting someone to braid it.
At the indecision of whether to get it cut or not...I am now at the point of very long hair.
AND so am going all the way to extremely long so that I can donate my ponytail to Locks of Love.
When this happens, I will then be back to seeking the perfect Swing Bob hairdresser!☺
Tasha wrote: "Happily spending the day cleaning and reading before the toppler. Great news I got a new job just confirmed."I'm glad your getting that nasty cleaning stuff out of your system before Saturday.
You didn't agree to start work before the Toppler did you?☻ Congratulations!
Or you could donate even more and get a number 1 all over Almeta ;-)
Sarah wrote: "Or you could donate even more and get a number 1 all over Almeta ;-)"ROFL! That would not be a pretty sight!
The required ten inches is as far as I am willing to go.
NO REMARKS FROM THE PEANUT GALLEY PLEASE!
Seems like required 10 inches in a sentence should spur at least one penis joke by someone
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
You'll love this one...!! A book club & more
Books mentioned in this topic
From Baghdad, With Love: A Marine, the War, and a Dog Named Lava (other topics)From Baghdad, With Love: A Marine, the War, and a Dog Named Lava (other topics)
From Baghdad, With Love: A Marine, the War, and a Dog Named Lava (other topics)
Dog on It (other topics)
Suspect (other topics)
More...
Btw - love this thread. I feel like I'm catching up with y'all.
I was on jury duty ( one of the reasons I was MIA) and the guy we convicted was just sentenced to almost 40 years. It was a horrible case that I think I have PTSD from listening to ( commercial abuse of a minor- I.e. Pimping out homeless, desperate teenagers). But I'm glad the sentencing is over.