Friday, 23 December 2011

Unformed Judgement

What was a 19-year-old doing on a jury in the first place? The minimum age should be put back up at least to 21, so that we could restore the proper minimum requirements for conviction, so that we could restore proper sentencing and proper prison regimes.

5 comments:

  1. Why do you think age will make any difference? My experience of jury service leads me to believe that age is no guarantee against ignorance, bigotry and sexism.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mine, too. Although, of course, we are not supposed to talk about these things. But there has to be some minimum age. And it ought to be beyond the teens. Think of yourself at that age.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am a white male in my late 60s, now retired, but worked continuously from 16 to 65. I am a married man with children and grandchildren and have NEVER been called for jury service. Not once in over 50 years. My wife was called once. How is it that the courts are working week in and week out and yet I have never been called? Some people I know have been called numerous times. I know that jury service can be a bit of a bind but I would have liked to have had the opportunity to experience the legal system at first hand. Although I still have all my marbles, and plenty of time on my hands, I presume that I am now too old.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think that it is 70, which is ridiculous when there are teenagers doing it. And when there are judges sitting well past that age.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jury of your peers. Many of those up before the court will be young and it is important juries don't intentionally exclude their peer group. An entire jury of 19 year olds would be a disaster, but so would any homogenous group.

    There does have to be some cut offs but 18 year olds participate in making laws, paying taxes, being parents etc and if make the wrong choices are rightly tried as any other adult.

    ReplyDelete