End age discrimination for jurors?

[housesparrow]

Found this in the Teleraph:


The jury shouldn't be out for the over-70s
The elderly are wiser and more experienced – and far less likely to tweet about the trial, argues Philip Johnston.

The over-70s are banned from jury service in England and Wales Photo: Alamy By Philip Johnston 8:12AM BST 26 Apr 2011
10 Comments
The collapse of a major drugs trial that had already cost the taxpayer millions of pounds, because one of the jurors allegedly exchanged messages with a defendant via Facebook, is more than just a story for our times. It could even hasten the demise of the "hallowed principle" of the British justice system, the centuries-old concept that an individual's guilt should be proved before an independent panel of ordinary people.

This particular juror faces contempt of court charges and possible imprisonment if found guilty; but despite the best endeavours of judges, the internet has entered the jury room. Although jurors are under strict instructions to listen only to the evidence put before them, they have been caught using Google to discover the backgrounds of cases, blogging about their experiences or tweeting friends to offer their opinions of the suspects.

The problem is that it is so easy to do. In the past, it was always possible for a juror to go to a library and trawl through a newspaper archive, looking for snippets about the case he or she was trying. But it would have been inordinately time-consuming, and risked discovery. The internet, by contrast, offers a simple, quick and private opportunity to assuage a juror's curiosity about a line of argument that has not been pursued in the trial, often for very good reasons.

What is to be done about this? If every juror did as they were told, it would help; but some evidently find the temptation too great. And the consequences can be serious, as in the case of Adem Karakaya, who stood trial for repeatedly raping and indecently assaulting a 14-year-old girl. The girl gave evidence against him and the jury found Karakaya guilty. After the verdict, however, a jury bailiff found internet printouts in the jury room, including several about the difficulty of obtaining rape convictions. Karakaya was retried, and acquitted.

Then there was the occasion in which the Appeal Court overturned a conviction after a juror looked the defendant up on the internet and discovered that he had a previous conviction for money laundering. The court said the jury might have formed an unfair, "adverse view" of the suspect as a result.

Related Articles
Juror escapes prosecution for posting court trial details on Facebook
16 Dec 2008
Juror used Twitter during trial
16 Mar 2009
Juror on Twitter during £9m case
14 Mar 2009
Judges now give explicit instructions at the beginning of the trial that jurors should not research anything connected with the case on the internet. Sometimes they repeat this order at the end of each day's proceedings. But lawyers say that it is impossible to police, especially when a crime – such as a murder – has been widely reported. The courts may try to remove names and other information from the internet, and can even enlist the help of service providers to track surreptitious internet use – but do we really want to end up snooping on jurors?

Perhaps, however, we are not seeing the wood for the trees here. Arguably, this problem is not really about the internet at all, but more to do with the attitudes of jurors – and with the fact that the young, in particular, are far less deferential than they would once have been.

The danger is that the jury system has its enemies, who will grab any chance to replace it with Continental-style, judge-only hearings. But there are ways that it could be strengthened. For instance, instead of choosing jurors only at random, why not also have a pool of volunteers who are willing to give up their time to sit and hear cases? Many people receiving their summons would like to get out of jury service, fearing that they will be tied up in a lengthy trial that disrupts their work and family life. Such evasion used to be easier than now, since exemptions or deferrals have become much harder to obtain.

There is one group of people who have the time to sit on a jury, whose careers will not be interrupted when they do so, who have experience of life, and who are the least likely to be tempted to tweet or blog. They are the over-seventies – and yet they are banned from jury service in England and Wales.

Why should this be? The Scots have recently removed the upper age limit on jury service, although those called up who are over 70 have a "right of excusal". This is surely sensible: in a world where people are fit and healthy well into their eighties – and beyond – it is absurd to deny the justice system their expertise.

This should not be seen in the tiresome context of ending "ageism", but as a practical way of harnessing the accumulated wisdom that an older person can bring to a trial, while at the same time enlarging the potential pool of jurors. A consultation on removing the age limit was undertaken last year by the Ministry of Justice but nothing has happened yet, largely because of strong objections from judges. The Government should ignore them and get on with it. For goodness sake, Kenneth Clarke, the man in charge, is over 70, as are some of our most senior judges who were on the bench before they were also told, preposterously, to retire at 70. These arbitrary age limits should be removed from the justice system entirely.

[Alpha Hooligan]

Not sure if being tried by a bunch of olds would be good or bad...I suppose wearing a suit, being polite and pointing out your unpaid work with "age concern" might win a few brownie points though.

As for the "internet angle", older folks are increasingly using "teh intarwirez", and that will only increase over the decades as the younger/middle aged generation get older.


AH

[everso]

May 2, 2011 21:28:40 GMT Alpha Hooligan said:

Not sure if being tried by a bunch of olds would be good or bad...I suppose wearing a suit, being polite and pointing out your unpaid work with "age concern" might win a few brownie points though.

As for the "internet angle", older folks are increasingly using "teh intarwirez", and that will only increase over the decades as the younger/middle aged generation get older.


AH

Hmmmmm. Wears suit. That's usually if you don't want to get lumbered with doing jury duty, isn't it? ;D I thought they always sent middle England types on their way.

[Alpha Hooligan]

I meant if you were in the dock. ;D

If you want to get out of jury service just tell them you would be delighted to do it as you've been doing a course in law and you watch all the cop/csi/court shows and feel like you know quite a bit about this stuff and can't wait to put it all nto practice - They'll drop you like a hot rock.


AH

[riotgrrl]

It's ridiculous to ban over 70s from this. 70 is the new 50.

After all, some of us are going to end up having to work until we're 70 anyway, and will be just about ready to retire at that age, not quite over the hill!

[everso]

May 3, 2011 15:10:04 GMT @riotgrrl said:

It's ridiculous to ban over 70s from this. 70 is the new 50.

After all, some of us are going to end up having to work until we're 70 anyway, and will be just about ready to retire at that age, not quite over the hill!

You are correct.

[housesparrow]

I'm not sure about older people being less likely to do their own research against the judge's instructions.

We have all seen Twelve Angry Men, where (from memory) Henry Fonda went off and did his own sleuthing, thus helping secure justice for the accused.

[everso]

I think I'd find it difficult to resist.