general chat my friend. there are categories for different types of topics. select the one that appeals. if your using tapatalk you will get everything
I've been called to Jury Service twice. The first time I had a case that lasted an hour (in the whole of the two weeks I had to attend). The second time I was released from duty as my expenses would not have covered my loss of earnings. I was there an hour.
That's not true, whilst I agree with you following post about secrecy of the jury room, there is nothing to prevent research post trial but obviously not with the original jury. When I was on jury service one of the cases I sat on was a re-enactment of a previous case specifically to research how juries interact, deliberate and reach a decision. The sessions were conducted under real conditions with the exception of an academic watching in the room with no interaction from said academic. Obviously our decision was irrelevant as nobody was actually on trial but we did come to the same conclusion.
Good point. I should have said that research into actual decisions made by juries is strictly forbidden. Research into mock decisions can be carried out, as you say. The researcher then has to make assumptions that the mock decision-making process is (or is not) similar to the actual process. Some factors like the demeanour of witnesses giving evidence would be hard to replicate.
How will an artificial one really be worth studying? Nothing at stake will make people behave differently
The judges, Court Service officials, and the Ministry of Justice have to provide prospective jurors with various types of information, guidance and instructions. These are updated from time to time, but it is very difficult to know whether jurors can understand them, or will follow them. The mock decision approach might shed a little light on that. I had the task of drawing up the instructions to board members in Court Martials, who are very similar to Crown Court jurors. Also notes to remind judges of certain things they must say to jurors. Believe me, it was not simple.
Your studies will, of course, have shown that the plural of Court Martial is, in fact, Courts Martial...
In earlier times, pedants use to reckon that the plural of court-martial was courts-martial. In the era of the Court Martial, nobody bothers with that now.
Gramatical accuracy can make a major difference in legal proceedings, as I'm sure you are aware. The plural is of the noun, court, not the adjective, martial; therefore the correct term is "courts martial". The "nobody bothers with that" attitude is the reason why we have so much badly worded legislation in our country and why we have so many young people incapable of communicating efficiently or effectively.
This is delightful. Many times have I been accused of being over-pedantic, even obsessive, in my concern for accuracy in grammar and spelling. Judging by your post, JR45, this is a problem I have overcome at last. I can sleep more easily in my bed now. Many thanks.
This is true, only this morning I left a 'post-Guinness steaming floater' in the toilet and blamed my son, I will no doubt burn for this.....
