On Thursday, 15 December 2022 at 13:08:08 UTC, NY wrote:
> On 15/12/2022 12:45, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 02:07:34 -0000, rbowman <bow...@montana.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 20:56:24 -0000, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Jury duty should be optional, so the people actually want to be there
> >>> and will think properly about the case (I'd accept it). There should
> >>> also be an IQ test.
> >>
> >> The the jury of peers would consist of retirees with nothing better to do
> >> than catch the early bird special at Appleby's.
> >
> > No, I've always wanted to do jury duty, nothing to do with being retired.
> I believe that jury service should be paid full-time job, not a
> conscripted and unpaid (except for expenses) duty. No-one should be made
> to take time off work to be a juror.

Trouble with thatv is corruption , who decoded where this years world cup was stagged professional full time staff that
were known and could be bribed.

>
> I was once called for jury service.

I've been called twice .

>There was a lot of waiting around
> doing nothing.

Yes that is frustrating. You can;t really go anywhere either and this was befopre smartphones came out.

>Twice I was called into court to serve on a jury. Twice I
> was one of the "excess jurors" who wasn't called to serve.

Were you rejected by the defendants ?

>Then I was
> allowed to go home. So I had all of the hassle without even getting to
> see or try a case. Utter waste of time.
Yes that is annoying, but I;d prefer that than going on a long difficult case.

>
> I would it find very difficult to try a case: to remember and weigh up
> all the evidence, to hear only the evidence that was deemed admissible,
> not to be allowed to know anything about the past history of the
> defendant,

that could bias you, which I don;t know whether that is good or bad.

> and with the risk that I might decide that the defendant was
> guilty, only to have the judge direct the jury to return a not guilty
> verdict.

That's due to lack of evedence because, because the idea is beyond resonable doubt for a guilty verdict.

> To my mind, the jury should be the *only* people determine the
> verdict and to describe whether a legal technicality is important or
> irrelevant.

What if they don't know.

> The judge should restrict his activities to chairing the
> proceedings and should have no power to pre-filter evidence or to
> overrule the jury.

He should if it's not proper evidence.

>The jury should also have the right to ask questions

They do, in the jury room you can ask that a question be answered by the judge as to a point of law any.
Your can asked the defended a question as that the job of the others.

> (or ask the lawyers to ask them) if neither prosecution or defence raise
> those questions.
>
> So I'd be a juror under extreme sufferance in a system that I have
> little confidence in, thinking "This is a charade that isn't played by
> the rules that I'd like to see.

But that doesn't make you right.

You don;t have to decide whether the defendant is guilty or innocent your job as a juror is to decide whether the police via prosecutor has
shown enough evidence for you to give a guilty verdict.

I found it interesting when on a case(s) on how this worked but it did take longer than expected.

>I want to get back to real life, so I'll
> go with the flow for a quicker verdict". Does the court *really* want
> jurors who think like that?

They want jurors capable of being able to think for themselves and to dicuss things in the jury room amonst themselves
and then come up with a vedict.