Vocal Voices

Simon Jenkins of "The Guardian" thinks that it is time that the jury system was done away with.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... NTCMP=SRCH

Is he right? I don't think so. Given his experience of the jury system I can see why he is frustrated with it, but maybe juries came about for good reasons, reasons which still apply.

He would say that, wouldn't he, in his typically patronising style - "The last case I 'tried'"?

Jenkins is part of that privileged London elite and Westminster bubblers whom these men (and women) serve, and they do not want us thick commoners getting in the way lest we do the 'wrong' thing.

BTW citing of the Pryce/Huhne case is a bit of a distraction. Had the police done their jobs properly, way back in 2003, Pryce and Huhne would already be archive material - no judge or jury necessary. With a jury, justice might get done, without one it is guaranteed that Pryce would get off.... unlike white van man.

I do wonder if there shouldn't be some sort of qualification for jurors though - I don't think I'd want to have my life in the hands of 12 random citizens of this city!

Definitely time for professional jurors, I think.

I was wondering about whether or not I would be able to do jury service with my hearing loss. I find it difficult to follow conversations now and I am sure I would really struggle. That lead me on to think about people who have English as a second language. Are they able to be jurors?

No I think good spoken English should be mandatory!

Loz I am sure you would get an exemption (((((x))))

It's a defendant's right to object to jurors for whatever reason. I'd prefer to be tried by 'twelve good 'men' and true', than wholly rely on the chess game played by barristers. If jurors do not understand the pertinent points then that's the fault of the judge and his/her summing up.

Loz, hearing loss would be an acceptable reason for not being called for jury duty.