- Ms Kaye is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Mary Carlisle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Prem Gill is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nancy Flight is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Justin Everett is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- John Westover is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nora Etches is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Edward Henderson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Bharadwaj Chandramouli is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Dean Chatterson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Marius Scurtescu is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Robert Parkes is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- James Murton is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Susan Doyle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Vincent Strgar is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Helen Spiegelman is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Subir Guin is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Kimball Finigan is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Joanne Manley is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- David Leach is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
The Jury's Trial
Why does our legal system punish jurors to a criminal degree?
Served on a jury lately? If so, you know that jury duty is a criminally unjust, completely overlooked part of Canada's legal system. How would you respond if you got a jury summons for, say, the trial of a biker gang member, or Robert William Pickton? Got a few months to spare?
Most Canadians go through a lifetime and never get a jury summons. So far, I've been granted the bounty of three jury trials. Luck of the draw. Two were quite short, less than a week each. But the last was an ordeal that tormented me for months -- and inspired me to examine the business of juror selection, regulation and treatment.
Anyone charged with a variety of serious criminal code offences -- generally those carrying potential sentences of above five years -- may demand a jury trial. A few weeks before the trial date, the judge advises a regional sheriff to summons about 120 citizens, forming a "jury pool" from which the privileged dozen, and usually two alternates, are chosen. During the selection, defence and Crown counsel are allowed a number of challenges, to discard jurors about whom they may feel unease and the trial judge may excuse jurors who admit to some bias or prior knowledge of the case to be tried.
Jury trials are held in Provincial Supreme Court. Each province maintains its own list of citizens eligible for jury summons, drawn from various sources from province to province. Some use a database of provincially licensed drivers and vehicle owners. Others rely on a voters list. Provinces may draw from the names of property owners, or Medicare enrolees over 19. As a last resort, if mailed summonses produce insufficient numbers, citizens will be summoned from the street, malls and bars. Don't mess with the sheriff and ignore a summons, by the way. In Nova Scotia, failing to respond draws a $1,000 fine.
Losing your liberty
If selected, you might find yourself assigned to a complex and nasty trial that will run for weeks or months. You surely will lose aspects of your liberty.
Determining the fate of a defendant is extremely troubling. You swear to apply your most diligent, open-minded judgement to all the evidence to be presented and commit yourself to using all the common sense at your command in deciding what you do and do not believe. You will leave your daily job. You are cut off from normal support systems by being forbidden to discuss the case with loved ones and friends during the trial, even though the case may be covered daily in the media. The judge will likely urge you not to read newspapers or watch TV news.
During a criminal trial, you will almost certainly see gory photos and hear details of violence that could haunt you for years. You will not be mentally or emotionally prepared in advance. You will not be able to dismiss the case from your mind on weekends and holidays, and will spend the length of the trial, and possibly much more time after it, obsessing over details of testimony, possible scenarios of a crime. Many of your own questions will be unanswered and some witnesses you desperately want to hear from may not be called or permitted to testify. No matter what level of psychological discomfort you reach, of all the provinces and territories, only Quebec explicitly offers payment for post-trial counselling. Other provinces leave such help to the discretion, goodwill and budget of the sheriff. It may not be mentioned or offered unless jurors specifically ask for it.
Everyone in the courtroom is being paid, decently to lavishly, except the accused, the witnesses and you, the juror. You might not get one cent for some or all of the days you sit. Ontario and Manitoba pay nothing for the first 10 days, while Newfoundland and Labrador pays its jurors nothing for the entire trial, no matter how long. However, it does require that employers of jurors with jobs continue their normal pay, and that employment insurance continues to flow. Contract employees, freelancers, homemakers and retirees just get stiffed.
Other provinces pay jurors insulting amounts starting at $10 per day in wealthy Alberta, $20 in BC, if you don't have an employer or union contract that continues your salary during jury service. The rates rise after 10 days and again after an unthinkable 50 days in the courtroom.
The torture of your peers
For the duration of the trial, you will share a small room with fellow jurors of assorted ages, education, experience and interests. Some will talk your ear off. Others will hardly say a word. You will spend much time together, because jurors repeatedly sit idle during courtroom conferences held "in the absence of the jury".
Fellow jurists might not share many interests with you. Among a dozen strangers in a room, discussion frequently turns to such stimulating TV fare such as "reality" and makeover shows. Jurors might follow CSI, Law and Order (which is sadly inconsistent with Canadian law), People's Court, Judging Amy and Police Chases. You may even be among those who adore new-wave shows featuring people who marry strangers or eat insects and rodents. Not keen on TV? Too bad. You will probably find it impossible to read or do homework in a small, noisy jury room. There is no quiet place you might escape to. You might be tempted to turn to Prozac or alcohol during lunch and smoke breaks.
You will soon realize that much of what you sit through in court is time-wasting, extraneous clutter.
When the trial finally ends, you may freely discuss anything you saw and heard in the courtroom. However you may not, on pain of prosecution, ever discuss jury "proceedings" which took place during the trial. The law (Criminal Code 649) is unclear on whether you can later discuss jury room conversations or other non-identifying matters that did not touch upon the case itself.
The judge will advise you that he or she alone is the authority on the law. The appeal courts await any judicial slip-ups. Your job as a juror is to judge "facts", which will be elicited by lawyers questioning witnesses for the Crown and the defence. Some attorneys waylay your search for truth by dragging in every red herring and "alternate theory" of the crime the law will allow.
You will probably also be denied information that might assist you, as the testimony of witnesses and perhaps the accused ("direct evidence") is filtered through centuries of clammy legal precedent and the new inhibitions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You will almost inevitably hear lies from someone sworn to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" and are left to sort out who you believe.
With luck, you may get some DNA and fingerprint evidence to work with.
How to beat the system
Cynics say juries are made up of people too dumb to avoid them. Yet, many people will never get a summons. How come?
In BC, only names on the provincial voter's list are used. If you move and leave no forwarding address, you're probably safe -- except in the malls, if the sheriff runs short. Alberta lists those who own cars and driver's licenses. Take the bus. Ontario calls only registered property owners to jury service. Be a tenant. Each province has its own particular quirks. You could look them up.
Other general exclusions you might consider:
- Grow old, or marry a codger. In some provinces (but not Ontario), you may simply decline a jury summons after age 65. In Quebec, even younger spouses of persons over 65 are exempted, along with all members of the armed forces, firefighters and clerics.
- Choose an exempted career. Be a lawyer or law officer -- exempt from jury service.
- Physicians write countless excuse letters in behalf of patients. Suffering from stress? High blood pressure? There could be a PhD thesis in researching this avenue of escape.
- Be a crime news junkie. The trial will probably follow a preliminary hearing by a few months. If you're familiar with the defendant and have formed an opinion as to guilt you will get a chance to say so, and simply having an opinion will set you free without further ado.
- You could beseech your employer to write the sheriff, pleading your irreplaceable value. You may later re-use the letter on the boss in seeking a raise.
- Finally, if you do sit on a jury, most provinces give you the right to decline any other jury summons for the next three years.
Suppose you slip up and get a summons. You still have 'outs':
Talked to death
My greatest peeve with jury duty is the utter disrespect for the juror's time. Jurors forego much to be there. We are less than impressed by proceedings moving at 18th-century speed. A great deal of trial decorum is mumbo-jumbo and repetition, having mainly to do with preserving the Court's "dignity" -- at considerable cost to efficiency. Witnesses' time is equally mistreated.
While the accused is entitled to presumption of innocence, the juror is entitled to a presumption of intelligence. So, lawyers, make your point and then move on. As Mark Twain said, "It is a terrible death, to be talked to death."
What can be done?
Judges and lawyers, steeped in the ponderous dignity of proceedings (and lavishly paid for their time), could expedite the process.
Pre-trial conferences organize the trial and agreements of fact are sometimes reached. These agreed admissions somewhat reduce trial time. Despite them, criminal trials can still drag on for months. More can be done.
Witnesses are flown across the land at considerable expense to attest the obvious. Trials are often delayed when witness travel arrangements break down. Can their evidence be taken more often by videotape or videoconference?
Is it necessary to spend the numbing amount of court time required to qualify and swear witnesses? Could they not be pre-sworn before taking the stand, and not "re-sworn" when resuming it?
Much time is spent tracking exhibits from the status of "police exhibit", to a "preliminary exhibit", then at trial introduced as "lettered exhibit", and finally after clearing sundry hurdles, "numbered exhibit". The process seems analogous to and almost as long as bringing a child from kindergarten to elementary school, through secondary and finally out the far end with a degree.
Should defendant access to jury trials be more restricted than it is? Perhaps longer trials could be held before professional, decently paid jurors.
Justices of the Peace and Court Masters adjudicate some legal matters. Why should these persons not be put to work as jurors for trials likely to last more than a couple of weeks? Some jury trials now run half a year, or more. There is no way an average citizen should be required to sit on such trials.
A variation of the Chinese system of paying a physician only when the patient is well might also hasten trials. I dream of stopping a lawyer's pay the moment he or she stands up to speak, resuming it only when the attorney stops.
Fighting for justice
Fortunately, only a few thousand Canadians are called for juries each year. In 2001-02, Alberta held 93 jury trials, using 1,116 jurors. Newfoundland and Labrador held 29 trials, inconveniencing 340 jurors. BC had170 criminal jury trials in 2003, pressing 2,040 citizens into service. A great many more trials are held before judge alone.
We jurors are yanked from our normal pursuits and interests, financially punished, and penned up with people with whom we share few interests. Some of us get pissed off. One jury was stuck for three months in a Northern BC trial that was supposed to last "a few weeks". On the third day of their deliberations, a fistfight broke out in the jury room.
We are put under the stress of evaluating evasive, conflicting and misleading testimony, scrutinizing gory photos and exhibits that will trouble some of us for life and having to decide the fate of multiple miscreants whose life choices and acts we can not begin to understand, much less condone.
Canada pours resource and thought into crafting new laws, law enforcement and both prosecuting and defending accused persons.
The justice system owes a much greater measure of justice to its jurors. It should now entertain ideas toward ending the mind-numbing theft of the juror's time, tranquility, privacy and personal liberty.
Garry Gaudet is a free man in Lantzville. ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Who Mowed Down the Premier?
- Canada's Economy, Deconstructed (by a 12 year-old)
- Death in Remand: a Tyee Inquiry
- Now Is the Time to Talk up Big Ideas
- Bill C-38: the Environmental Destruction Act
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- Death In Remand: 'A Gut Feeling'
- Bias in BC's Pesticide Decision? Follow the Bouncing Verbs
- The Ethics of Addiction Studies
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- Now Is the Time to Talk up Big Ideas
- The Ethics of Addiction Studies
- Bill C-38: the Environmental Destruction Act
- Alberta Fills Pipes with Corrosive Denial
- Bias in BC's Pesticide Decision? Follow the Bouncing Verbs
- How Our Immune Systems Exaggerate Fear
- BC biotech company seeks approval for GM apple
- What's Behind BC's Doors?
- 'Storage Wars'
- Seven Goals to Build the Conservative 'Dream'
- How Our Immune Systems Exaggerate Fear
- Does Simon Fraser University Need a Men's Centre?
- Now Is the Time to Talk up Big Ideas
- Why Blackberry's Embrace of HTML5 Is Good Karma
- Bias in BC's Pesticide Decision? Follow the Bouncing Verbs
- Death in Remand: A Jail Crammed with Risk
- The Ethics of Addiction Studies
- What's Behind BC's Doors?
49
Login or register to post comments
neocon
6 years ago
Comments on "The Jury's Trial"
Interesting article.
If I'm not mistaken, I think you can get out of jury duty by simply refusing to swear allegiance to the Queen - mayabe that's changed now.
In any event, I would likely try to get out of jury duty (depending on the trial) simply because I've lost all confidence in criminal sentencing - my way of protest.
NoLeftNutter
6 years ago
Sat on jury duty for 7 weeks and a day last year on a first degree murder trial. I agree with your points.
You failed to mention rationalizing the conflicting testimony of a variety or expert witnesses from both sides, on a wide range of topics.
My guess is that about 40% of the time spent at the courthouse is productive for the jury.
My advice - just say no.
canuck_cougar
6 years ago
Many years ago during the long, time wasting, boring process of jury selection, I maintained the nastiest glare at an accused rapist that I could muster. My hope was that his lawyer would notice and I would be excluded from the jury. If that didn't work I was prepared to say I had pre-judged his guilt. Not very "civic minded" of me but I was absolutely not interested in spending my time on a jury and away from my regular job and life. I never got to test my theory as the jury was formed from those poor folks ahead of me in line. Subsequently, I discovered that BC uses the voters' list from which to choose potential jurors. I had already been called for jury duty twice in 3 years and did not want a repeat summons so I had my name removed from the voters' list. Registering each time I want to vote is a small price to pay to stay below the radar.
BC Mary
6 years ago
Thanks to Garry Gaudet for this report, which makes chilling reading.
My secretary was once called for jury duty. "Go. Do your duty!" I said, having no idea of the reality described above.
It turned out to be a trial for incest, with two mature daughters giving evidence against their father.
The trial wasn't lengthy ... less than 2 weeks, if I remember correctly.
What I do remember vividly is the trauma evident in the wonderful young woman who I had urged to do her duty. She couldn't talk to anyone about what she had seen and heard ... fortunately she had strongly supportive parents and siblings around her. But for days after she returned to work, she looked as if she had been through hell. I can well imagine that the lurid details of that trial may have tainted her own views of life, too. It surely doesn't seem fair.
Is our jury system worth it? Or is there a better way?
I noted that Basi and Virk opted for trial by judge alone and wondered what is the advantage to the defendant, in that format?
Colin
6 years ago
It is a shame as the jury system is often the only contact that the average citizen has with the justice system and I think it does show us laypeople the “health†of the system. My sister is a lawyer & ex-adjudicator (LRB) She does not believe in the jury system and that it should be left to the “professionals†I personally disagree with this, but I also recognize that the system is not working properly.
I have been called 3 times and not selected, but I was a witness in 4 cases so far. I also represented a friend in family court once, that was a great learning experience.
My wife did a stint at Court 100 (Main street) and was highly unimpressed with our court system. In her opinion (7 years law in Malaysia) we waste to much time on discoveries, no shows, failure to get lawyers and postponements. Also she was amazed to see people show up stoned for their court dates, in Malaysia it would mean an automatic trip to rehab. Plus if you didn’t find a lawyer by the court date, to bad the judge is going to hear the case right now.
Bytesmiths
6 years ago
In Clackamas County, Oregon, I wrote a polite letter to the judge when summoned. I explained that I was self-employed, and that serving on a jury would be an undue hardship in my case, and received a letter releasing me from duty.
Now that I have received my Permanent Resident visa, based on Business Class, Self-Employed, I wonder if I'll be able to do the same in Canada, should the need arise?
I'm not opposed to being on a jury. In Oregon, employers are required to pay a certain percentage of salary during jury duty, but as a self-employed, I would lose my income during that period. I am not willing to pay taxes AND work for the government for free!
poindexter
6 years ago
Well, that's the understatement of the year. I didn't have to read this article to know that I'd rather attend an NDP fundraiser than do jury duty. Ugh.
poindexter
6 years ago
By the way Bytesmiths, your Oregon method will work here, I know people in that situation who have been released from duty.
apple
6 years ago
I did a social psychology course once and the teacher told us that if we are guilty, ask for a trial by jury in the hopes of getting off. If we are innocent, a judge would be able to see through the arguments because we're innocent. The reason being,partly, the CSI effect. Juries are wanting a solid case, like they see on TV. When they don't get it then the opinion sways either way.
One jury convicted a guy because in the background of an evidence photo they saw a hole in the wall and assumed that he must have punched it - meaning he was violent. Neither the prosecution or defence mentioned this hole in the wall, but juries are made of humans that aren't trained to look at the individual arguments, but want to find something more certain or proves uncertainty.
Luceo
6 years ago
I have been called for jury duty three times and served twice, in Canada.
My experience was that, if the prospective juror made the feeblest of excuses, he/she was excused at the time of jury selection. This, to me, is rational, as those who don't want to be there, attempt to speed up the process, by simply siding with the majority without true weighing of the evidence. This is, of course, known by the lawyers, judges, etc.
My advice is the opposite to Gaudet's. If you are intelligent, rational, you care about justice, and you will not suffer severe loss as the result of the lack of income, etc., serve on a jury, the way you should. YOU set precedent and YOU determine the severity of a crime. Work on it and think carefully. It is an experience worth understanding.
I gained a great deal of respect for the Canadian legal system while serving on a murder trial. There were no efforts at grandstanding and literally no "objections" as we are used to seeing on American TV shows. There were no comments, fill-ins, leading of witnesses, etc. The process was highly professional and all proceedings were relevant. Yes, I agree, that there was a witness that I would have liked to hear, but I also understand that the reasons that witness was not called, were legal. We were sequestered for deliberations ... severe health discomfort for me ... So what? I'm not the poor child who must live forever with going downstairs in the morning to find my only parent dead, stabbed 83 times, put on my boots, and walk off, alone, in the snow, through my neighbourhood, to find help.
Yes, I was subjected to hideous photos and horrendous descriptions of crimes, but I was NOT the victim, just the person who delivers the verdict. Don't whine about jury duty, just do it. Think about the alternatives.
UNDERSTANDME
6 years ago
LUCEO !
big HUG...YOU are the kind of person that makes CANADA a desirable place to live...
we must all sacrifice...we must all do our duties
jesterjogger
6 years ago
Hey throw out a story, any
Hey throw out a story, any story, having to do with crime and whadya know? right wingers come flockin' in like crows to a carcass!!
Instead of selling product with SEX, marketers could nab you harpo's just by printing pictures of electric chairs and gas chambers.
Plus it's you lot who have(stole) the most money anyhow - its a win-win scenario!
p.s.-evil pr!ck ******* jumped onboard with some fancy law firm today as a conduit for corporate america to meet with the new godfather. I thought they campaigned against this type of shady influence peddling and systemic corruption? Oh well atleast I know how you guys get all that dirty money you have.
Nothin' like rigged game eh.
"when a yag can't even depend on a fixed bet anymore then we're back in the jungle with the animals!"
jesterjogger
6 years ago
p.s.-rigged game: rav line, olympics, sea-to-sky highway, gateway project, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
BC Mary
6 years ago
Excuse me, jester j ... not once on this thread did I detect the evil-prick (good one, hahahaha) rightwingers ... silly me, I thought each of us had offered experience, consideration, hopes, and some appreciation for Canadian society.
Canèt see where the Olympics or the RAV line fit into jury duty. Wrong thread, maybe?
Percy
6 years ago
The real story here is not the inconveniences of jury duty (after all, it was one of the guarantees of the Magna Carta). There are a lot of inconveniences arising from both democracy and a system of civil liberties. The right to be tried by one's peers is a guarantee against tyranny (it's hard to have show trials with real jurors), so whining about it is just immature (and probably a result of the trashing of the "whig" version of history). The real story is that the system does not adequately address the problems of jurors who need a stipend which constitutes a real approximation of the opportunity cost of jury duty.
dorothy
6 years ago
There is obviously a fence here, and some are gathered very distinctly on each side of it. I have done jury duty twice. One of those times, my employer stepped in and wrote some damnable patronising letter insulting my status as a free person in a free country, because my contract guarantees no loss of wages, but the employer gets the jury pay, which, of course, is a poor deal for the employer. I got to do jury duty anyway. I also got to take care of my job in the evening, since there was no replacement, and racked up some overtime, but I was wiped out when it was over. However, I would go to great lengths to not undermine so funadmentally important an institution. As the man said in the ad: I have travelled far for that one vote, so I revere it as it deserves. and shame on those who would whine about it. I would not want them on my jury, should I ever be accused of anything!
allan
6 years ago
I think lawyers, who have had a free ride from the public for far too long, ought to be taxed, yes that's TAXED on their income to help cover the real costs to jurors.
Let's face it, how many professions have millions and million in public dollars spent to erect palaces for their leisure and convenience?
If you are a juror you even have to pay for your own parking while some "learned" fellow blathers on and on and on and on about the reason why the trial can't go ahead at this time.
So some guy buys a law degree and lives on the backs of the public forever. Oh, sorry, I forgot. There is the public good to think about, isn't there?
Rent a hall if it's that good.
Tell me why courts tend to vertually shut down for several weeks around Christmas and then in August you could fire a canon in most courthouses without any danger of hitting anyone.
Of course it isn't all about criminal jury trials. The real rip-off comes in the civil cases where lawyers can tie up judges, court space and virtually anything else they wish for months while you and I pay because some schmuck wants to sue his neighbour and a lawyer wants to top up the ol' pension scheme.
woody
6 years ago
O.J.Simpson Proof that the Jury system functions
UNDERSTANDME
6 years ago
U don't need to look south to explain we have problems in/with OUR legal system...
look at BERNARDO & HOMOLKA...that SHE is out FREE enrages me ! BUT the way our laws are CRAFTED ,her defence got her a REAL DEAL...just ask her what the cost of killing your sister is...
for the misogynists out there...now you have a story to counter CAIN and ABLE...and sell it to the AMERICANS...
is life really that CHEAP ??? when LEPINE went berserk with his killing spree...didn't the government of the day do something???DID YOU PARTICIPATE???DID YOU DO SO BLINDLY???DID YOU GET THE RESULTS YOU/WE/ WANTED???
DID THE GOVERNMENT CRAFT THE RIGHT LAWS ???
we get the governments we desrve...cause we pick them...
IF WE STOPPED PICKING A$$HOLES...WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO PUT UP WITH THEIR SH!T...
like TROOPER sings...RAISE A LITTLE HELL !
Colin
6 years ago
Marc Lepine had one really screwed up childhood and was taught to hate woman from an early age by his Muslim father.
Lepine's (a.k.a. Gamil Rodrigue Gharbi)
Suicide note:
Forgive the mistakes, I only had 15 minutes to write this. See also Annex.
Please note that if I am committing suicide today 89/12/06 it is not for economic reasons (for I have waited until I exhausted all my financial means, even refusing jobs) but for political reasons. For I have decided to send Ad Patres the feminists who have ruined my life. It has been seven years that life does not bring me any joy and being totally blase, I have decided to put an end to those viragos.
I had already tried as a youth to enlist in the [Armed] Forces as an officer cadet, which would have allowed me to enter the arsenal and precede Lortie in a rampage. They refused me because of asociality. So I waited until this day to carry out all my projects. In between, I continued my studies in a haphazard way for they never really interested me, knowing in advance my fate. Which did not prevent me from obtaining very good marks despite not handing in my theory assignments and studying little before exams.
Even though the Mad Killer epithet will be attributed to me by the media, I consider myself a rational and erudite person that only the arrival of the Grim Reaper has forced to undertake extreme acts. For why persevere in existing if it is only to please the government? Being rather retrograde by nature (except for science), the feminists always have a talent for enraging me. They want to retain the advantages of being women (e.g. cheaper insurance, extended maternity leave preceded by a preventive leave) while trying to grab those of the men.
Thus, it is self-evident that if the Olympic Games removed the Men/Women distinction, there would be only be women in the graceful events. So the feminists are not fighting to remove that barrier. They are so opportunistic that they neglect to profit from the knowledge accumulated by men throughout the ages. They always try to misrepresent them every time they can. Thus, the other day, people were honoring the Canadian men and women who fought at the frontlines during the world wars. How does this sit with the fact that women were not authorized to go to the frontline at the time??? Will we hear of Caesar's female legions and female galley slaves who of course took up 50 per cent of history's ranks, although they never existed? A real Casus Belli. Sorry for this too brief letter.
[ of 19 women he wishes to kill.]
Nearly died today. The lack of time (because I started too late) has allowed those radical feminists to survive. Alea Jacta EST.
[/]
UNDERSTANDME
6 years ago
the best way i have found of understanding the BAFFLEGAB/GOBBLEDYGOOK is by remembering that little biblical story of THE TOWER OF BABEL...
if you want something newer ANIMAL FARM fits the bill...then of course some VONNEGUT if you want to see how rational our world can seem...
whenever there are more voices than you can hear CLEARLY...STEP BACK...the silence is DEAFENING.
everyones wants/desires cannot be met...so we have to COMPROMISE...and that's what most of our laws are...COMPROMISED
there is not a law that can not be bettered...perfect example...KIDDEE PORN...THE AGE OF CONSENT...NEED I SAY MORE ???
that the LEGAL SYSTEM needs an overhaul...goes without saying...
whose ass needs kicking ??? ours ??? or theirs???
jtothemfk
6 years ago
The author makes some very keen and important points. However, he fails to address the fact that luceo brought up: that being tried by one's peers is a fundamental to a democratic polity. Inconvenient, harrowing, boring, tortuous... all these things? yes, probably for most people but one side of me says "boo hoo."
The other side is with the authour and Allan who point out what an incredible waste our system and we suffer from.
Not unlike some halls of academe or government or some social circles, the justice system and all it entails suggests a circle jerk, everyone patting and rubbing each other, self-referential and congratulatory, all with this b.s. guise of giving "dignity" to the institution. Many more people would give plenty of dignity if we felt that we had a fundamentally working system.
ON the jury duty issue, specifically, I can only say: well, that's democracy for ya! damn inconvenient at times.
I do agree with the authour's many points about what a bitch it is but can only suggest that other things (some points allan addressed) could take care of that, rather than suggesting simply to dodge the call like it's a charity calling.
jtothemfk
6 years ago
It also seems, from the tone of the article, that the authour is not entirely sincere in his assessments and advice. It seems more like he's had his fair share of jury duties and they've all left him a bit empty and unappreciated. We should all take this with a grain of salt. Seems like this thread's been exhausted though so mayhaps I'm just posting a mental diary entry. ok for now...
jtothemfk
6 years ago
yes, you need say more.
jtothemfk
6 years ago
you refer to the two as if they're the same. Child pornography and "the age of consent" although often overlapping, are two different issues needing at minimum two different laws (and I'm not all that convinced that our laws are not already adequate in both regards. sentencing and leniency being separate monsters altogether). so forego the capitalization of what you perceive to be salient points and explain what you mean. Nothing leaves me hanging worse than closers like: "need I say more", "enough said", or "period!".
Birch
6 years ago
Trial by jury is the judicial equivalent of democratic government. It may be true that most people on a jury are dull-witted or venal or self-interested (as opposed to interested in justice in a disinterested way), etc., but the same argument can be made in spades when it comes to analysing voting patterns. Perhaps we should simply appoint an expert to choose the government and forget all about those inconvenient elections (think of all those ugly plastic signs).
I think a strong argument can be made that jurors should be paid well for their time and effort. Or, one might argue that jurors should be paid at the rate they were earning in their own regular job. Or, we might select the jury from a list of people applying for unemployment benefits (two birds with one stone!). Or, there might be other useful suggestions. Clearly some aspects of jury duty need to be revisited (the author of this article, whiny as he sounds, makes some reasonable objections to the task as it is currently arranged).
Luceo
6 years ago
It is unfortunate that jury duty is not paid, but there is some rationale for that. Some jurors don't want to serve, because they are losing money. If that loss involves confirmable severe hardship the juror is excused.
The alternative is to have people with no job or income, trying to get on a jury, for the money. This means it would be worthwhile to study, not how to get out of jury duty, but how to get on jury duty: practising how to look neutral and lying by omission when asked if there are any reasons for exclusion from service. Some would pretend they could endure the whole trial, only to drop out, putting the entire process in jeopardy. Others would work hard at getting in, already fully intent on paying no attention to the actual proceedings. Also, dragging out the time needed for a verdict would mean more money. So, some jurors would vote whatever would assure no immediate verdict. The element of self-interest would be so high that the jury might as well be made up of of 12 of our least respected politians (You pick them.) Also, the more cheats and prevaricators there are in the jury, the more skewed the legal system would be, in favour of criminal activity.
As it stands, most jurors do their best. Yes, some of them yearn to go home. But they will still attempt to do an honest job and assure as speedy a process as is possible.
UNDERSTANDME
6 years ago
hey jtothemfk !
ROBIN SHAPRE'S trial showed us some IDIOTS actually think KIDDEE PORN can be ART !!!
tell me what kind of GARBAGE puts children in jeopardy with laws that entice predators.ala...
the AGE OF CONSENT...
just because some half wit in a robe makes weak laws, cause MEDIOCRITY dictates his/her duty ...doesn't mean CHILDREN are SAFE...
WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THESE MORONS KNOW,THAT OUR CHILDREN ARE SACRED...otherwise you will raise pyschologicaly damaged kids who will COST you in the security and growth of a STRONG,VIBRANT AND JUST NATION.
it's an aside...but child ABUSE like that MARC LEPINE suffered is a point to ponder...WHEN WE RAISE OUR CHILDREN...SHOULD THEIR ENVIRONMENTS AND LESSONS NOT BE OF THE HIGHEST DEGREE ???
AND SHOULD OUR LAWS NOT BE MADE TO PROTECT THE FUTURE REGENERATION OF A DECENT SOCIETY ???
and not A SICK SOCIETY !!!
BC Mary
6 years ago
Since reading this story, my mind has travelled to all those courtrooms in the country where the judges must sit -- day after day, years on end -- listening to these godawful cases. I wondered how they cope as human beings, what their home life is like, what they block out and what they can't block out ...
And just a minute ago, I heard on CBC Newsworld, that a B.C. judge had spent last night in jail after police were called to a downtown bar (Vancouver Hotel, I think) to deal with a patron who was drunk, unruly, and beligerent.
UNDERSTANDME
6 years ago
unruly JUDGE !
hey...i just saw him on the tube and he looks like any slob gettin outta jail...REAL STUPID !
but then again ...old GORDO ...showed us getting drunk for the ELITE is OK...even if ya get caught!
as long as the judge wasn't driving...as long as he didn't pull a POWER TRIP (YOU DON'T KNOW WHO I AM!)...as long as no one got HURT !
i say...just one o those wet yer whistle...ooops
did i say that???...MISTAKES we can all make.
and the EMBARASSMENT ??? OUCH !
kurt
6 years ago
I'd like to be on the jury that hears "Duck" Cheney's friendly fire lawsuit, provided I suppose that the lawyer he hit survives and doesn't feel he's heard enough remorse and contrition from ol' Duck...
Shooting and injuring a lawyer, hmm, do you think Cheney will plead insanity?
BC Mary
6 years ago
Kurt: You leave the impression that you live in U.S. territory ... how do Canadians interpret that?
BC Mary
6 years ago
Thinkin' about that old U.S. guy who was shot by the U.S. vice-president while blasting at birds in Texas ... did you see the side view of that poor old codger's neck? The U.S. media said right out loud that there was only one small scar over the codger's eyebrow. But the side view showed holes aplenty above the collar-line. Holes surrounded by purple bruising.
I asked around and it seems that pellets are still made of lead. If the old U.S. codger is walking around with even 1/2 of the 200 lead pellets lodged in him -- this surely can't be a good thing?
UNDERSTANDME
6 years ago
NOT AS OFF TOPIC...as it seems.
shooting a lawyer and then pleading insanity...there's a plea EVERYONE would cop to cause it seems ta work so well...TV,BS or what???
AND FRIENDLY FIRE!!! our boys that got killed with those meth fueled pilots a few years back...a term that is ACCEPTED...as SH!T HAPPENS...in war...cause LAWYERS were allowed to twist CIRCUMSTANCES!!!
we see that the lawyer CHENEY shot...had more REMORSE than CHENEY ??? wrong place wrong time!
matter closed ,now my buddy dick can get back to REAL ISSUES OF IMPORT !!!
that these clowns are as thick as theives should be apparent to all...and that they have built a system to FORCEFEED their PARASITIC offspring and keep their type in a POSITION OF POWER is indicative of how complicit we are in the BIG PICTURE...
we as the PUBLIC do our DUTIES to our COUNTRY...WE GET A MENIAL STIPEND...
THEY AS THE ELITE FEED AT THE TROUGH(we built)
and we grumble in the background and fight amongst ourselves for the crumbs...
SMALL WONDER THEN,THAT THE BIG BOYS DON'T LIKE THE KIND OF RHETORIC WE SEE ON THESE PAGES !!!
INFLAMATORY...INCENDIARY...WHATEVER YOU CAN AIM THEIR WAY...DO IT...JUST MAKE SURE IT AIN'T LIBELOUS !!! CAUSE THEY'LL KEEP YOU IN COURT TIL HELL FREEZES OVER...
UNDERSTANDME
6 years ago
shotgun pellets today are carbon steel thanks to our CANADIAN ...DUCKS UNLIMITED fight to keep our wetlands in GOOD ORDER...
lead pellets have gone the way of the DODO...thank god for small favours and sensible people that saw waterfowl and their predators dieing from lead poisoning.....SOME PEOPLE CAN CONNECT THE DOTS...
Slithey
6 years ago
As someone who has served on jury trials I believe it's essential that the legal system continues to have participation from ordinary citizens, if only to keep an eye on its excesses.
Gaudet makes an important point about the unnecessarily timeconsuming rituals. These clearly benefit the legal profession, but their origin is likely more subtle and difficult to deal with. Precedent leads to expectations of more procedure that was perhaps important in a particular case but then becomes mandatory to eliminate dismissals on "technicalities". And knowing what these are is the test of lawyers' skill. There is no process or strong interest - except of course the public interest - in removing these procedures. It leads to bad decisions - as trials are dragged out for months the jury loses focus.
At the trial i participated in there was considerable discussion about the time of sunset on the day of the crime. this was asked of a number of witnesses, though the reason for the questions was somewhat obscure. So I looked it up myself on the web. The point is that trials sometimes involve facts, and the cumbersome form of expert testimony are not reasonable ways to establish them.
Keep the jurys, but let's rethink how to perform the trials efficiently while improving fairness. It's not so hard.
driftwolf
6 years ago
OK, being tried by a jury is a right. Serving on a jury is a "duty". That's nice. Isn't it also a right to be paid for work rendered? Isn't slavery outlawed? As I understand it, what the author is saying is that just because someone is doing their duty isn't an excuse to insult and degrade them, which is what the court system does to jury members.
Whereas victims and others in court, even the criminals, get psychological counselling if necessary, the jury members are left to fend for the themselves. While everyone else in the court is getting free parking, the jury members are out of pocket for it, and parking near court houses isn't usually that cheap. While everyone else in the court except the witnesses are getting a decent wage, the jury members are again out of pocket, and the witnesses aren't there for weeks on end. Everyone in the court is being treated with dignity, except the jury. I agree with the author, it's time that changed.
Until the justice system realizes that they are punishing the very people they need to complete the picture of justice, then there can be no justice. Treat the jury nice, as they treat everyone else, and then trial by jury might mean something again. Until then, I plan to keep informed and form an opinion early.
mspacek
6 years ago
I'd like to do jury duty once in my life, if for no more than a couple of weeks.
I think it's a bit shocking that some people end up being summoned several times, while others are never summoned at all. What's wrong with exempting someone from having to sit more than once in their life? We're not likely to run out of eligible people.
I'm also miffed to find out that each province can pick their jurors however they like. Picking only from those with driver's licenses, or only from property owners? Hell, you've already biased your pool of eligible jurors. Picking from the voters list and income tax records seems a reasonable thing to do.
Sad to hear that so much of the jury's time is wasted. I'm sure their ability to reason and use common sense goes down the toilet once they become bored and discover how little the court values their time. I bet you could increase jury pay to a reasonable $70 a day and fund most of the difference by reducing unnecessary delays. Maybe hourly rates for trial lawyers should be outlawed, and replaced with a flat fee per trial, like someone on contract getting paid for a job. Maybe lawyers could be presented with two flat fees per trial: one if they win, and a somewhat lower one if they lose.
CBC put on a mock jury trial once, so they could film and examine what goes on in the jury room. I think it was done in Vancouver. Pretty interesting stuff.
Thanks to this article, now I finally know the name of that old black and white movie I remember seeing as a kid: "12 Angry Men". At the age of 10 or whatever, I remember it left a real impression on me. Can't wait to see it again.
Just out of curiosity, anyone know if it's possible to volunteer for jury duty?
Luceo
6 years ago
Consider the outcome of a jury that is paid (incentive one) and also volunteers (incentive two). There's a recipe for a jury of the accused's friends: more a jury of "peers" than lawmakers intended. Remember those involved in crime have flexible schedules, particularly in the day, when court is held, and others have to actually work.
Fortunately, both the crown and the defense must agree on the suitability of a juror, usually selected from a very large pool of possible candidates.
Some of the above ideas in this thread, completely overlook that most jury trials have very seriously harmed (or dead) victims. What about some justice and closure for them? Juries that I have served on (B.C.) have been highly respected, well treated, and have definitely been offered free psychological couselling at the end of the trial.
On the U.S. hunting shoot: "Insanity" would not be a good choice of defense. U.S. voters might balk at having to admit globally that they have a legally "insane" V.P. Surely G.W. is embarrassment enough. Too bad the wealthy, above the law, elite, managed another cover up (read Chappaquiddick). "Drunk out of their minds", is more likely the truth, and has been brought in as a defense here in Canada, to reduce the severity of the charge ... something that should be NOT even be HEARD, in my opinion. Cheney's big problem is not his crime, but his position. A propensity, even to "temporary" insanity is not conducive to keeping his job.
How about a law that demands automatic, serious time, lock-up for anyone who is conscious and does NOT immediately report an accident or a crime involving bodily harm? No getting a team of lawyers first, then letting the police in on it all, later, after your fiction has been meticulously orchestrated and your blood is free of intoxicants. It happens here too. Campbell was caught outright, before an accident occurred, otherwise we would possibly have had to hear the "I called my lawyers and then wandered around stupified all night" story.
My question is, why can't we find better people to vote for?
mgeoghegan
6 years ago
Well I think the lesson here is that apart from shut ins, most people have better things to do with their lives than sit ona jury. So collectively we the people have to take a stand in order to ensure that jurors are adequately compensated for their time.
I think fair renumeration would be $500 a day per juror plus meals and accommodation.
Anyone who agrees to jury duty under the present circumstances is a fool and or a simpleton. Which explains OJ's acquittal.
UNDERSTANDME
6 years ago
Subject
[OFFENSIVE COMMENT REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]
woody
6 years ago
Go ask Gillian Guess, if it was rewording to serve on jury duty.
UNDERSTANDME
6 years ago
gillian guess !
now theres an egocentic individual that got caught with her pants down !!!
screwing the DEFENDANT is by all rules and any morals or ethics...NOT KOSHER...
SHE GOT WHAT SHE DESERVED...AND MADE THINGS WORSE WITH THAT BIG MOUTH OF HERS.
that she flaunted her stupidity made everyone wonder about the SYSTEM...that SPOTLIGHT was the only good thing to happen...UNFORTUNATELY...nothing of any import was done to RECTIFY ANY PROBLEMS .
woody
6 years ago
chit man, that was a fast rebut, all I can say is I Guess(no pun intnded)you gets what you pay for, and no this ain't California.
UNDERSTANDME
6 years ago
watching ...24...and was cruising/surfing faves when yer post came up...
we all know how ridiculous the GUESS fiasco was.
that these things can happen show us we really need to rework the whole damn works...
society is everchanging ...AND OURS LAWS AND LEGISLATION SHOULD SHOW CONSTANT CHANGE...
IT'S ONLY FAIR TO CANADIANS...
woody
6 years ago
AMEN-----Im off to watch Craig Ferguson, very funny guy.
kurt
6 years ago
Theoretically speaking, if I was a juror on Whittington vs Cheney, ol' "Duck" Cheney wouldn't be left with a pot to pee in.
dave49
6 years ago
I was called for jury duty about five years ago. Names were drawn at random from a wooden box. I was called for a three-day trial where drug trafficking was the issue. The defence lawyer rejected me. My name went back in the box for two other trials.
The other trials were a week and three weeks. The longer the trial got, the more prospective jurors tried to get excused. For the most part, the judge was not sympathetic to new Canadians' claims of poor language skills. Valid excuses included hardship due to single parent status, soloprenuer/self-employed status, health issues, and booked travel commitments.
For the initial call you still get $20, but you have to travel, park and eat.
While I did not serve on a jury, I can see a lot of Gaudet's points.
Dee Bee
6 years ago
Hi...regarding jury duty I have a sort of comical story to relate. I was 76 yrs. old when I got my first jury duty summons and as I had always wanted to try jury duty just to see how our justice system works I was excited about it. I was to report to New Westminister Court House at 8:00 AM so left White Rock at about 6:30 AM as it had snowed the night before. I arrived in N.W. about 7:45 and had coffee and then went to the Courthouse arriving about 8:20 to find a large crowd in the lobby. Around 9:00AM we were given a pep talk on what was going to happen when we went into the Courtroom. Keep in mind that I was eager to be selected so I got a seat in the front row and low and behold I was the first name pulled out of the hat, so I thought I was a shoo in. After that they had to call a large number of names to get enough jurors to get going. The trial was a charge of fraud for I think over $5000.00 and just about every person they had called was obviously trying to get off with a variety of excuses, some of which the Judge would not allow. Anyway, now it was time for the lawyers to do their "challenge" thing and as soon as the attendent asked me my name the defendant's lawyer said "challenge" and my career as a juror was over. It was so comical I almost started laughing, I could almost read the lawyers mind thinking "What is this old guy 76 yrs. old doing here when he doesn't even have to come because he is over 65 yrs. of age". I came away with a poor opinion of our court system when the only person of the about 60 or 70 people called that wanted to be on the jury was excluded. I guess the best part of the whole thing was listening to the excuses people used to try and get out of it.