The general decline in standards today

[LoveMyHats2]

That is something good to know.



That makes me feel better. Perhaps if the circumstances had been different the people would have been different. At the time, I thought, "I couldn't mentally handle a criminal case if this is how people are going to act." The stress of putting someone in jail on top of people with such flippant attitudes would have meant absolutely no sleep for me for weeks on end while I worried about if the person would get a fair discussion by the jurors. But I am glad to hear that my experience isn't the norm.

I tend to find that anyone on a Jury in a criminal case, has a hard row to go. The over all responsibility for the future outcome of the guilt or innocence factor is not always an easy ordeal to conclude. I personally desire to not have to be faced with that job in my life.

 

[C-dot]

Ours is still the best legal system ever devised...I firmly believe that. Though I have heard people complain about it throughout my entire career, the complainers are most often the people who have been held accountable by it. And in all the grumbling, I have never heard someone come forth with a better alternative.

My sentiments exactly. I am a small part of it, I believe in it, and it is my express duty to defend it, and I have no problem doing so.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

If I had to choose, I'd much prefer a criminal case over a civil one. The last time I was on jury duty was in 2000 when I ended up with a 5-year-old civil case (at that time) which was originally thrown out but was appealed. The plaintiff was a lawyer who was representing himself.

 

[LizzieMaine]

When I was a reporter covering trials I found myself rather repulsed by some of the legal chicanery that went on -- the worst being the case of a twenty-year-old who beat his grandfather to death with a claw hammer in a bathtub to get money for drugs. There was no question the kid was guilty, and the idea that anyone would try to argue any kind of extenuating circumstances otherwise was just, at a gut level, really sickening to me.

I still see the lawyer who argued that case around town, and even though it was twenty years ago and I know he was just doing his job, I still can't stand to look at him because of it.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Ours is still the best legal system ever devised...I firmly believe that. Though I have heard people complain about it throughout my entire career, the complainers are most often the people who have been held accountable by it. And in all the grumbling, I have never heard someone come forth with a better alternative.

AF

I agree as well...
After the murder trial was over...and the public cleared the courtroom. We as jurors were asked to remain in the jury box. The judge asked us what we thought of the trial...how the prosecutor and defense attorney performed among other questions about the trial. Any questions or comments that we had were welcomed. I don't know if this is the norm in most courtrooms...or just with certain judges...but it was an appreciated ending in our case. They explained somewhat about what happened in our absence when we were ushered back into the jury room during certain aspects of the trial. Each of us were allowed to give our opinions of how the trial was conducted. That led me to believe that there was general concern with not only justice...but also the process. A transparency of sorts. In any event..it was a relief..or needed release for the jury. We weren't just left 'hanging' with our final decision.

 

[Atticus Finch]

I agree as well...
After the murder trial was over...and the public cleared the courtroom. We as jurors were asked to remain in the jury box. The judge asked us what we thought of the trial...how the prosecutor and defense attorney performed among other questions about the trial. Any questions or comments that we had were welcomed. I don't know if this is the norm in most courtrooms...or just with certain judges...but it was an appreciated ending in our case. They explained somewhat about what happened in our absence when we were ushered back into the jury room during certain aspects of the trial. Each of us were allowed to give our opinions of how the trial was conducted. That led me to believe that there was general concern with not only justice...but also the process. A transparency of sorts. In any event..it was a relief..or needed release for the jury. We weren't just left 'hanging' with our final decision.

Van, I’ve seen this done occasionally, but I always worry when I do. There is a significant danger that a juror will reveal that he or other members of the jury did something improper. For example, maybe a juror considered information other than the evidence presented at trial to make his decision. I’m always concerned that some juror will say something like, “My uncle and I drove out to the crime scene last night, and the defendant is right. Dang, its dark out there after sunset!”

Of course, it would would be good to know if the jury did this, but I'd sure enough be trying the case again.

AF

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Van, I’ve seen this done occasionally, but I always worry when I do. There is a significant danger that a juror will reveal that he or other members of the jury did something improper. For example, maybe a juror considered information other than the evidence presented at trial to make his decision. I’m always concerned that some juror will say something like, “My uncle and I drove out to the crime scene last night, and the defendant is right. Dang, its dark out there after sunset!”

Of course, it would would be good to know if the jury did this, but I'd sure enough be trying the case again.

AF

One thing they didn't do was delve into how we arrived at our decision. I suppose there is always the possibility that a juror could offer up something off the cuff,though. They seemed more concerned about what we thought of their overall performance rather than specifics about why we found him guilty.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

One thing they didn't do was delve into how we arrived at our decision. I suppose there is always the possibility that a juror could offer up something off the cuff,though. They seemed more concerned about what we thought of their overall performance rather than specifics about why we found him guilty.

In some places the jury gets asked about their reason for finding the guilt or innocence by the defense or DA. I think that is not a very good thing. Personally a Jury has a hard enough time, just leave them alone and let them have peace.

Much of what we know of as "law" stems from the word, Jury. It all started with a gathering of members of a village or town, that would listen to the argument or statement of what an accused had done. Maybe only one step above "mob rule". As time progressed the "jury" evolved into more set rules and policy and procedures until it became what we in modern times call, a court of justice.

I do agree we do have the best court systems. I just still want not much to do with them.

I do also give a lot of respect for anyone that has served on a Jury. It is a experience for sure.

 

[Pompidou]

After the case I served on was over, it was settled out of court after three days, the judge took us all on a tour of the courthouse and generally explained how everything works. He also said it's a regular ritual he likes to do.

 

[sheeplady]

After the case I served on was over, it was settled out of court after three days, the judge took us all on a tour of the courthouse and generally explained how everything works. He also said it's a regular ritual he likes to do.

I got a very nice certificate and a letter signed by the judge who oversaw the case I served on. I really appreciated it, I thought it was a nice touch. I plan to hang it in my office one day.

 

[Tomasso]

After the case I served on was over, it was settled out of court after three days, the judge took us all on a tour of the courthouse and generally explained how everything works. He also said it's a regular ritual he likes to do.

That's a nice touch. You won't get that treatment in a big city.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

 

[scottyrocks]

I was selected for a civil case about a year ago. It was the first time I had ever done so. It was a fascinating experience.

What I found strange, though, was that we were being asked, in opening remarks, to consider two things.

1. Whether or not the plaintiff was guilty.

2. If the plaintiff was found guilty, the plaintiff asked for the highest amount of money 'recommended' for this case. The defense asked for us to find for the least amount of money 'recommended' for this case. 'Recommended' in quotation marks is my own word. I believe the lower recommendation was from the defendant's insurance company.

What was weird was that going in, there was already a planted thought that the defendant was guilty, since they were not only talking about money, but actual dollar amounts.

We did indeed find the defendant guilty because it was obvious that he was, which is probably why even the defense attorney didn't try to BS us at the beginning. He just wanted to lessen the impact on his client's insurance company. Then again, he may have been hired, or on retainer, directly by the defendant's insurance company for that purpose.

I would guess that this type of practice has been around for a long time, and is not a modern day thing.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

I was selected for a civil case about a year ago. It was the first time I had ever done so. It was a fascinating experience.

What I found strange, though, was that we were being asked, in opening remarks, to consider two things.

1. Whether or not the plaintiff was guilty.

2. If the plaintiff was found guilty, the plaintiff asked for the highest amount of money 'recommended' for this case. The defense asked for us to find for the least amount of money 'recommended' for this case. 'Recommended' in quotation marks is my own word. I believe the lower recommendation was from the defendant's insurance company.

What was weird was that going in, there was already a planted thought that the defendant was guilty, since they were not only talking about money, but actual dollar amounts.

We did indeed find the defendant guilty because it was obvious that he was, which is probably why even the defense attorney didn't try to BS us at the beginning. He just wanted to lessen the impact on his client's insurance company. Then again, he may have been hired, or on retainer, directly by the defendant's insurance company for that purpose.

I would guess that this type of practice has been around for a long time, and is not a modern day thing.

It does happen. Insurance companies try to do what is called a "set limit" for the amounts they will try to settle an account out of court. They also try hard to use that same figure when they are forced into a trial. However, as you know, a trial can make a judgement amount go way up, or, even be as little as one dollar.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

 

[Warden]

Three middle aged women have been thrown out of a royalty themed tearoom in Stanhope, County Durham, for refusing to stand when the national anthem was played.

See BBC news report here

 

[Edward]

Three middle aged women have been thrown out of a royalty themed tearoom in Stanhope, County Durham, for refusing to stand when the national anthem was played.

See BBC news report here

I saw that this morning. It seems like a rather odd affair all round. I would have refused to stand myself... but then I wouldn't have set foot in the place to start off, and that's the bit I don't get. In all likelihood there's some part of the story that isn't being reported so we're missing something, but if they were that offended by the idea of being asked to stand for the queen, why patronise what was blatantly such a pro-royalist establishment to begin with? [huh]

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

but if they were that offended by the idea of being asked to stand for the queen, why patronise what was blatantly such a pro-royalist establishment to begin with? [huh]

General cluelessness combined with the all too pervasive "You're not the boss of me" mindset perhaps?

 

[Edward]

General cluelessness combined with the all too pervasive "You're not the boss of me" mindset perhaps?

Maybe they assumed it was just ironic kitsch, rather than somebody being for real about it all... [huh]

 

[Peregrine]

More detail here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-18141421

This line made me howl with laughter:

"They told me my coffee was rubbish but it is a tearoom so I don't care."

Good for you, Mrs. Atkinson - it's nice to see someone standing up for what they believe in!