I was having a conversation with my brother-in-law yesterday and he told methat he hasbeen called to attend Jury service. This is the third time he has been called and on the previous occasions he managed to 'get out of it' He says that he is not going to attend this time either. There was a group of us there and it turned into a heated discussion. I have never been called for Jury service and would love to attend. However, I was in the minority, most didn't see the point in attending because from their perspective, the Judicial System does not work in our favour. One even used religion as his reason for non-attendance (ie. judge not.. blah, blah, blah, he even quoted a piece from the bible!)I agree that the Judicial system is institionally racist, but my argument was that if more of us attended then we could perhaps have a hand in changing things (?)

I would be happy to know your views.

Actually, I argued with my friend that they can't force you to attend until I researched about it and found out I was wrong. Interesting, I don't think I can sit in the place( whatever it is call) for days and like 6 hours a day. It will be so boring to me, but it also depends on the case. I have never been called, if I was called, I would try and aviod it by all means. I have never stepped inside a court, and I still don't want to go there at all. I remember I was once approached and ask if I would liketo be one of the guys police callfor Identification parade or whatever it is called, they offer me £50 on each occasion they call me, but i declined it immediately. Police, Court, Law etc I have nothing to do with them except I need them. Let them do their own thing and I 'll do my own thing.

@ saint

I don't think that they can 'force'us to attend, but Jury Service is a public duty, so as a member of the public it is meant to beour moral obligation. Still, there are ways of getting out of it. I have worked within the Crown Court for a number of years and I can understand you not wanting to step foot in such a place, my neice wants to study law and I suggested that she spent some time sitting in the public galleries, she found it an enjoyable and educational experience.

@Athaba

I understand what you are saying, but lets just say we have a black defendant,this one black jurorcould give the 11 white members a little insight into ourculture and behaviour. What the white members may see as abnormal behaviour, may be completely normal within our culture, this one black member, therefore can use his/her voice. (does that make sense? I'm finding it hard to put into words what I mean) I know that prejudices and stereotypes will often interfere with the impartiality of the jurors opinion.But surely the more voice we have, the more affect itwill haveon changing such stereotypes. As I say I have never attended, so I really don't know what goes on within the confines ofa jury retiring room.

@Camilie Athaba has got it in an nut shell. Instituitonal power and bias is not mediated by a black face or two and in fact the actual reverse. Similar with disciplinary panels and hearings. If you think a black person being present is going to be of any assistance 95% of the time you better forget it, as they are more likely to be called or used to quash any allegations of racism. Just sat through a recent case where white employers marched out the most senior blacks to rebutt one of the most clearest cases of racism I have seen for the longest time.

Does that mean in particular instances one conscientious black person cannot mess up the whole party of course not. But usually the average black person is such a weak position that they will comply or pretend as if they see or hear nothing. For one black person to be seen openly to defend another puts that black person at risk and scrutiny. So the majority will not do it.

Can the one black person educate whites, well that assumes that person is qualified, skillful enough or more than the whitesand whites actually want to hear it, which from my experience the majority aint got the time. A white man can defend a white person no problem, but any black person defends another and watch the visual and body language. I worked for the police and defending my people, when that was wheretheevidence and facts led me,and had no fear of these people, but whites did not like it one bit at all. But given my position who gave a damn who they liked?

Black people are placed in impossible positions of having to take "loyalty tests" to see whose side you are on and it has very little to do with truth, because white people will reconvene privately or informally and cast their verdict about you, or any black personand the game will be set from there. I was asked a straight forward question in an officers briefing which was pre planned and had nothing to do with the issue about what did I think of Bernie Grant. Realising what was going on I answered and given my knowledge and character it met absolute silence.

Afterwards a white Inspector ran behind me in the corridor to shake my hand at what he said was one of the couragaeous things he had seen, knowing the police and that type of culture and those are the type of dynamics black people face. Ask a black barrister about what I am saying.

Should black people refrain from becoming jurors well that depends on them and the case and it can be very useful for experience and understanding the system, but as long as you realise in most cases, especially when it comes to your own you are simply legitimising any bias or discrimination in the system and process.

Look at the US where the conservative right are up in arms about the juror system since OJ because in a minute number of cases, black people do not do what whites expect and now they are questioning the efficacy of the jury system founded and established in their own consitution.

Fredniceone.gif

Jury service is long

I think I would be like Homer n The impsons

' Ahhhh Jury service. I make sure he hangs fot this' lol!!

I was called up for jury service when my daughter was exactly a week old. No way was I going to attend. I told my doctor and she wrote a letter saying that I was not presently fit enough to fulfill the role. I wouldn;t do it anyway even if they called me now.

At the time my doctor told me that you had to have special reasons to opt out of it, and illness was one of the few ways you can. Problem I believe is in being on the electoral roll as I was at the time.

But it is so inconvenient to ones work and family committments. I know they do reimburse you some loss of earnings and travel expenses, but not all. Plus where they wanted to send me was over 20 miles from where I live.

My committments are to my home and family. I think they should let the people who want to do it have the job and leave those who dont alone. What is the point of having resentful disgruntled people on the jury anyway?

niceone.gif

mmmmmmmmmmmm...

ive done jury service...





and the conlusion i drew from the experience.. was... that justice is blind.... man made... full of errors.... just there to give people a false sense of security...

@FredBlack, does you response tell us that you have not and willnot be attending?

@ Locsgirl, you wrote: 'I think they should let the people who want to do it have the job and leave those who dont alone.'

I think jurors are selected from a cross section of society, wouldn't the selection be narrowed if they were to allow only those who wanted to do it?

I agree that there is no point in having people that are resentful and disgruntled, but I think that as a member of the British publicwe should see it asour civil duty. A friend of mine who attended was asked to attend a crown court some miles from her home and she was able to transfer to a court of her convenience. Also, she stressed that she had work commitments and her jury service was shortened to five days rather than theintended ten.

From my experience within the court service, jury officers were very accomodating, and they are quite aware that people have financial and personal comittments. I don't think jury service isintended inconvenience usthough it is obvious that some people may beand to a certain extent I think thatshould to be expected.

I dunno, maybe I'm not seeing the big picture, when I think of jury service I think of a black and white film that I saw years ago '12 angry men' in this film one man managed to sway the views of 11 others to provea defendants innocence - maybe i'm being naive to believe that this could ever happen!

@Lucas

please can you expand, do younot feel that your input was relevant.

Ooops, over-looked your little comment there Cashmoney LOL

@Camille

But surely "Those who want to" as I quoted would be from a cross section of the community?

I would also like to believe that maybe one person could have a positive influence on eleven others.....but somehow I doubt it!

niceone.gif

locsgirl wrote:

I think blacks owe it to themselves to participate in all aspects of the criminal justice system, be itas lawyers (including CPS lawyers),policemenor as jurors.It is totally disempowering to shy away from involvement in instutions whose impact on black life is far too often oppressive.

If blacks were present in higher numbers, by the law of averages you would get more blacks, whose first committment would be to protect the interest of blacks, rather thanwhat we have at present, amarginalised or co-opted minoritywho are impotent to effect any real change.

I think it is dangerous to advise blacks to abstain from such involvement, as it leaves themat disadavantage in terms of acces to information.As Haki Madhabutti said-blacks far too oftenfind themselvesorganising aroundimformationthat is worthless, the most most useful parts havingbeen filteredout by the authorities.

This is self evident and is seen time and time again when eg the Police close ranks in cases of deaths in custody. Perhaps if there were more blacks theremight befewer deaths in these circumstances, but at the very least, properly motivated blacks should be able to provide information necessary to break that wall of silence and bring about successful prosecutions of the guilty.

Reading the range of replies here I was horrified. 'Oh it's too hard', 'it's too boring', 'it would cost me money', 'the system stinks', 'I keep my hands clean', 'it's not my responsibility'.

I have done jury service and sat on two cases. One was an encouraging example of how the legal system rejects police evidence that stinks (white policeman, white alleged perp) without even getting to a verdict. The second was a hugely upsetting rape case (white victim, white alleged perp) in which I found plenty of prejudice on the jury, though against women, from both men and women, black and white (there were two black jury members out of the twelve). The majority concensus was, basically, that an alcoholic woman could not be raped and the bloke was found not guilty. I was sho