What the hell is a 19 year old doing in a Young Offenders' Institution? Surely 19 is old enough for big boys' jail? And if not, why is it old enough to send someone else to big boys' jail?
We get told criminals cannot be jailed so why jail this bloke?
Society does not need protecting from him so a community sentence would surely be appropiate.
I'd sooner see scumbag muggers jailed than misguided students.
I am in no way condoning the contempt of court shown but judges are very good at not jailing people Joe Public would consider need locking up and the key thrown away yet someone like this chap gets locked up.
Madness. Either the prisons are full or they are not!
It's contempt of court .. I am an old geezer and I find that far too many young people are contemptuous of anything and everything that is traditional, demands an obligation, and involves any kind of civic responsibility or accountability .. a few days banged up will teach this young man that he has a duty to the society of which he is a part and from which he gains enormous benefits .. yes, the prisons are full, yes, some might perceive his offence as minor and unworthy of imprisonment, I don't .... a community or suspended sentence would be laughed off .. a night or 2 in a cold cell under a thin blanket will serve to show that those who show contempt will be treated contemptuously and will indicate to other potential jurors that if they F*** up they will be f***ed up in return. Trial by jury is a vital element of this nation's few remaining freedoms and relief from governmental dictat. Everything possible must be done to retain it's integrity
I also agree with that Lincs. The point is how you can mug someone, have a knife on you for no good reason etc etc and not get jailed.
Quite ridiculous, I agree .. the Law is an ass, and sometimes it kicks the wrong person's ass while totally missing those who deserve a right good clobbering.. ANYone carrying a knife should be regarded as a potential assailant and jailed and if appropritae, deported, no exceptions.
We get told criminals cannot be jailed so why jail this bloke?
Society does not need protecting from him so a community sentence would surely be appropiate.
I'd sooner see scumbag muggers jailed than misguided students.
I am in no way condoning the contempt of court shown but judges are very good at not jailing people Joe Public would consider need locking up and the key thrown away yet someone like this chap gets locked up.
Madness. Either the prisons are full or they are not!
Seems you've been reading the Daily Mail again, if we don't jail criminals in this country then why is the prison population currently over 80,000? They can't all be jurors who've been jailed for contempt.
Jailing errant jurors for contempt of court offences is done for a reason. He was sitting in judgment of a defendant who has the right to receive a fair trial and that means the jurors have to accept a little responsibility and not go swanning off to West End musicals. It isn't much to ask.
I think 19 is too young to do something as important as Jury Service. I wouldn't want some spotty teenager having a say on my trial. Surely don't recruit anyone under the age of 30?
Disagree if you are old enough to vote then you are old enough to sit on a jury. To be honest having done jury service twice and sat on 5 cases,Iwould not be so worried about age but the general incompetence and disregard for evidence over stereo typing and un substantiated assuming.
Younger people are more likely to listen,whereas others will chip in with "in my experience....."
We get told criminals cannot be jailed so why jail this bloke?
Society does not need protecting from him so a community sentence would surely be appropiate.
I'd sooner see scumbag muggers jailed than misguided students.
I am in no way condoning the contempt of court shown but judges are very good at not jailing people Joe Public would consider need locking up and the key thrown away yet someone like this chap gets locked up.
Madness. Either the prisons are full or they are not!
19 may be too young for jury service, an interesting question for the future. But being on a jury is a very serious responsibility, a custodial sentence seems the right punishment to me - without deterrence a lot more people might start to do similar.
There seems to be an imbalance between the severity of a crime and the severity of a jail sentence in this country. I personally think that community service would have been a more practical punishment, especially considering that it kind of fits the crime by 'giving' some of his time where he thought he would get away with not.
I do think though that at 19 I wouldnt have been fit to be on a jury and whilst trial by jury is a proud and long standing tradition, given the deterioration of culture today and the fact that a large percentage of young people struggle to give a shit about far more basic matters, some new measures should be brought in to raise the age.
of course it is the right sentance. The whole jury was sent home in his absence and it cost the tax payer money, held up valuable court time and showed a total disrespect to everyone involved.
On the issue of age, how old is too old to serve ? 60 ? 70 ? You could argue for instance that those over say 60 are so set in there way's with their views that they should be excluded before we start excluded those under 20. In my opinion a jury should represent the whole spectrum of society so that we get balanced views enabling a jury to reach the right verdict. A jury entirely of those under 25 would reach a totally different verdict from one made up of those entirely over 65 in some instances.
He wont have to do all his sentance if he keeps his nose clean, he'll be out in a few days time and i'll wouldn't mind betting he will will never get pick again to serve .
14 days does seem a tad harsh to me considering what people get when they are on Cops With Cameras and there like but I've always thought a crime against the crown is dealt with a lot harsher than one against joe public.
What a div. And the fellas mum should be ashamed of herself too. Frightening level of ignorance.
This
Absolutely.
"It's ludicrous. I do not understand what the judge was trying to achieve by putting him behind bars," she said. [errr, deterrent to others perhaps?]
"I asked him not to do it, he only moved to Manchester in September, hasn't settled well and has been feeling lonely, but he felt it was his duty. [so how much of a duty did he see it as? Won't be lonely for long with all his new prison friends]
"He's a naive 19-year-old and when he told me what happened, we told him to hold his hands up and apologise, because we trusted the British justice system. It stinks. [Naive eh?]
"He wanted a career in the government but he's got a criminal record now. We thought he'd get a slap on the wrists." [So you knew it was wrong then.]
Mr Orr said he had bought the tickets to the musical as a Christmas present but had not been able to accompany Banks because he had had to work. [So your work is important but jury service isn't]
"Whenever he gets something on his mind he stops eating. He keeps himself to himself and wouldn't hurt a fly. He's smart and career-focused but he's got a criminal record now. I think it's a disgrace," he said. [Naive and smart - unusual combination]
19 is far too young. I was called up when I was 22, and that was too young - though there were younger & more stupid people on the same sessions. Should be 25+ for Crown Court.
I did jury service three times before I was 25 (what are the chances of that?). First time I was 19 - I didn't see anything wrong with it. As someone else posted above, the younger members of all the juries I sat on were more inclined to take the whole process seriously - one of my co-jurors on one trial actually fell asleep in the room whilst we were debating a case (he was middle-aged and clearly couldn't give a shit about the fact we were about to make a decision on whether a bloke would be banged up for anything up to five years)
The most inexcusable thing about this is the appalling level of ignorance shown by the man's mother - can she really think that jury service is optional, and that you can be excused from it if 'you're having a bit of trouble settling into where you live' or are 'a bit young for it'? Frightening.
I just heard the bloke talking on the radio and he sounded naive but genuine. The punishment seems incredibly harsh to me as it will ruin a young person's life for making one silly mistake. It feels like this is part of a pattern as this follows a number of overly harsh sentences handed out to some young people involved in the riots with those responsible for sentencing appearing to pander to the hang em and flog em types that are currently so vocal in the media and the government.
Comments
What a donut serves him right Chicago is shit should've gone to see something better
We get told criminals cannot be jailed so why jail this bloke?
Society does not need protecting from him so a community sentence would surely be appropiate.
I'd sooner see scumbag muggers jailed than misguided students.
I am in no way condoning the contempt of court shown but judges are very good at not jailing people Joe Public would consider need locking up and the key thrown away yet someone like this chap gets locked up.
Madness. Either the prisons are full or they are not!
Different systems, I know, but....
Seems you've been reading the Daily Mail again, if we don't jail criminals in this country then why is the prison population currently over 80,000? They can't all be jurors who've been jailed for contempt.
Jailing errant jurors for contempt of court offences is done for a reason. He was sitting in judgment of a defendant who has the right to receive a fair trial and that means the jurors have to accept a little responsibility and not go swanning off to West End musicals. It isn't much to ask.
This
Must admit it makes me smile.
But being on a jury is a very serious responsibility, a custodial sentence seems the right punishment to me - without deterrence a lot more people might start to do similar.
I do think though that at 19 I wouldnt have been fit to be on a jury and whilst trial by jury is a proud and long standing tradition, given the deterioration of culture today and the fact that a large percentage of young people struggle to give a shit about far more basic matters, some new measures should be brought in to raise the age.
of course it is the right sentance. The whole jury was sent home in his absence and it cost the tax payer money, held up valuable court time and showed a total disrespect to everyone involved.
On the issue of age, how old is too old to serve ? 60 ? 70 ? You could argue for instance that those over say 60 are so set in there way's with their views that they should be excluded before we start excluded those under 20. In my opinion a jury should represent the whole spectrum of society so that we get balanced views enabling a jury to reach the right verdict. A jury entirely of those under 25 would reach a totally different verdict from one made up of those entirely over 65 in some instances.
He wont have to do all his sentance if he keeps his nose clean, he'll be out in a few days time and i'll wouldn't mind betting he will will never get pick again to serve .
14 days does seem a tad harsh to me considering what people get when they are on Cops With Cameras and there like but I've always thought a crime against the crown is dealt with a lot harsher than one against joe public.
"It's ludicrous. I do not understand what the judge was trying to achieve by putting him behind bars," she said. [errr, deterrent to others perhaps?]
"I asked him not to do it, he only moved to Manchester in September, hasn't settled well and has been feeling lonely, but he felt it was his duty. [so how much of a duty did he see it as? Won't be lonely for long with all his new prison friends]
"He's a naive 19-year-old and when he told me what happened, we told him to hold his hands up and apologise, because we trusted the British justice system. It stinks. [Naive eh?]
Mr Orr said he had bought the tickets to the musical as a Christmas present but had not been able to accompany Banks because he had had to work. [So your work is important but jury service isn't]
"Whenever he gets something on his mind he stops eating. He keeps himself to himself and wouldn't hurt a fly. He's smart and career-focused but he's got a criminal record now. I think it's a disgrace," he said. [Naive and smart - unusual combination]
that?). First time I was 19 - I didn't see anything wrong with it. As
someone else posted above, the younger members of all the juries I sat
on were more inclined to take the whole process seriously - one of my
co-jurors on one trial actually fell asleep in the room whilst we were
debating a case (he was middle-aged and clearly couldn't give a shit
about the fact we were about to make a decision on whether a bloke would
be banged up for anything up to five years)
The most inexcusable thing about this is the appalling level of
ignorance shown by the man's mother - can she really think that jury
service is optional, and that you can be excused from it if 'you're
having a bit of trouble settling into where you live' or are 'a bit
young for it'? Frightening.
I was called up 3 times before I was 30.