(no subject)
I had jury duty yesterday. Interesting and boring, enlightening and disheartening, fair and biased, ugly and clean.
I don't know if I had the usual experience with the exception of the fact that I wasn't picked for any jury. There were roughly 120-150 people there and the original estimate said that there would be 3 cases seen today, each requiring a 12 person panel. In the end there were 5, so perhaps half of the potential jurors found a spot.
We were treated well by everyone there, and I have to say the tip staff of the county court in Melbourne have some amazing beards. The lady in charge of the jury pool reminded me of a primary school teacher filled with enthusiasm telling little jokes and informing us that her superior knew of five marriages that had formed out of jury duty. For longer trials we were offered the chance to decline without mentioning an excuse to the judge. The selection of who goes into the pool was random, the selection of who goes in to each court was random and the order that potentials were called to the panel was random.
I was called up to go in for two panels, somewhere between 30-40 were called up at a time which was overkill but it means that there is less sitting around and at least you'll see something there.
The first of which was not particularly nice. We had been told in the briefing to look at the accused as we came in, to ensure that we did not know them and I am glad that I did then. The judge was running a bit late so we sat around and waited for them and their assistant whilst nothing happened. The judges assistant asked the accused how they pleaded the multiple charges of penetration of a child under 16 and multiple charges of a lewd act with the same. The judge interjected and specifically requested that the assistant read what was written under the first charge, specifically that child was under the age of ten at the time.
The names of the pool were read out and I asked to be excused from the trial as I did not think I would be impartial. Other people gave their reasons. Then the remaining names were shuffled and called out. The accused had the right to challenge 6 people from the pool without giving reason, based on what they could see and the name of their occupation, the defence will generally request that a member of their team advise in the selection, which they did here.
Five challenges were used, all of whom were female. I was sitting in the back row nearest the dock and heard some of the whispered conversation regarding one woman who got through, which was "no, no she's young". When ever a female candidate came up I started counting the time until I heard a call of challenge. In the end the jury was mostly filled with younger male people and I felt disgusted.
In the video shown in the briefing the lawyer said the challenge rule is generally used to balance gender and age ratios. "Fix" felt like it would be a more accurate word than balance. I kind of wish seeing which people they were aiming for that I had not excused myself, but the story was too close to another I know and there's no point complaining about someone cheating when you're doing it yourself.
The second case involved the theft, robbery destruction of property and recklessness. It's worth remembering kids that if it comes to court a brick can be a weapon. The accused in this case shared some of the prejudices of the previous, specifically not wanting to be judged by women or seemingly teachers. This one used up all their challenges after which I almost laughed when two teachers slipped past.
The law has changed recently as to what one says in court to declare that this is the truth that you are speaking. I kept a tally of the juries I saw sworn in and exactly two thirds sworn on almighty god and one third affirmed without mention of a god, which is slightly ahead of the no religion/not stated combination on the census.
I'm glad I went. Did not leave a good taste in my mouth though to be honest.
I don't know if I had the usual experience with the exception of the fact that I wasn't picked for any jury. There were roughly 120-150 people there and the original estimate said that there would be 3 cases seen today, each requiring a 12 person panel. In the end there were 5, so perhaps half of the potential jurors found a spot.
We were treated well by everyone there, and I have to say the tip staff of the county court in Melbourne have some amazing beards. The lady in charge of the jury pool reminded me of a primary school teacher filled with enthusiasm telling little jokes and informing us that her superior knew of five marriages that had formed out of jury duty. For longer trials we were offered the chance to decline without mentioning an excuse to the judge. The selection of who goes into the pool was random, the selection of who goes in to each court was random and the order that potentials were called to the panel was random.
I was called up to go in for two panels, somewhere between 30-40 were called up at a time which was overkill but it means that there is less sitting around and at least you'll see something there.
The first of which was not particularly nice. We had been told in the briefing to look at the accused as we came in, to ensure that we did not know them and I am glad that I did then. The judge was running a bit late so we sat around and waited for them and their assistant whilst nothing happened. The judges assistant asked the accused how they pleaded the multiple charges of penetration of a child under 16 and multiple charges of a lewd act with the same. The judge interjected and specifically requested that the assistant read what was written under the first charge, specifically that child was under the age of ten at the time.
The names of the pool were read out and I asked to be excused from the trial as I did not think I would be impartial. Other people gave their reasons. Then the remaining names were shuffled and called out. The accused had the right to challenge 6 people from the pool without giving reason, based on what they could see and the name of their occupation, the defence will generally request that a member of their team advise in the selection, which they did here.
Five challenges were used, all of whom were female. I was sitting in the back row nearest the dock and heard some of the whispered conversation regarding one woman who got through, which was "no, no she's young". When ever a female candidate came up I started counting the time until I heard a call of challenge. In the end the jury was mostly filled with younger male people and I felt disgusted.
In the video shown in the briefing the lawyer said the challenge rule is generally used to balance gender and age ratios. "Fix" felt like it would be a more accurate word than balance. I kind of wish seeing which people they were aiming for that I had not excused myself, but the story was too close to another I know and there's no point complaining about someone cheating when you're doing it yourself.
The second case involved the theft, robbery destruction of property and recklessness. It's worth remembering kids that if it comes to court a brick can be a weapon. The accused in this case shared some of the prejudices of the previous, specifically not wanting to be judged by women or seemingly teachers. This one used up all their challenges after which I almost laughed when two teachers slipped past.
The law has changed recently as to what one says in court to declare that this is the truth that you are speaking. I kept a tally of the juries I saw sworn in and exactly two thirds sworn on almighty god and one third affirmed without mention of a god, which is slightly ahead of the no religion/not stated combination on the census.
I'm glad I went. Did not leave a good taste in my mouth though to be honest.