Talk:Juries in England and Wales

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

England

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

New article

Name - I have chosen the name so that it's easy to link from "jury" in the text. My intention is that "jury" will link here in E&W articles. I have called it "Jury" rather than "Jury trial" as it's about the jury, the trial is a bigger thing.
Currency - I am pretty happy that this is up to date as of 16 July 2007.

I'm sure that there's till plenty to add here.Cutler 19:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Affirming v. Oath

Is the current text on Affirming v. oath accurate? Specifically, this article [ http://atheism.about.com/od/ideasforatheistactivism/a/AffirmSwear.htm ] suggests (but does not actually state) that Christians also have the right to choose to affirm rather than swear an oath to God. I refer specifically to this paragraph:

"This is not an issue that only affects atheists. Many religious believers, including some Christians, object to swearing oaths to God and would prefer to affirm that they will tell the truth. Britain has guaranteed a right to affirm rather than swear an oath since 1695. In America, the Constitution specifically references affirming alongside swearing at four different points."

Although I have never been called upon to swear an oath in court, if I were, as a Christian, I would prefer to affirm rather than swear. To swear an Oath to God under such circumstances seems to me to be highly disrespectful to God as well as disrespectful and demeaning to me - using a person's religion and a trick of language to try to bind/manipulate/control them. My relationship with my maker is a private matter, between him & me (nor would any opinion from any "Christian leader", such as the Pope/Archbishop, allay my concern). While historically that device, the oath to God, has been used, I for one now find it highly offensive and inappropriate. Put all witnesses on an equal standing and have them all affirm - God will judge them (or not) all the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.5.146 (talk) 12:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Special Juries

I don't see any mention of the so-called Special Juries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_jury which have now been abolished, but existed in some cases up to 1971.31.49.95.174 (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Social composition / financial recompense

I seem to recall that one criticism of the jury service system was that the social composition of juries was skewed towards those members of society least able to avoid taking part; the middle classes successfully argued that they were unavailable or would be professionally disadvantaged. The relatively low financial recompense paid to jurors was a possible factor, I think. (Today, the maximum claim for the first 10 days is £64.95 per day (including childcare!) plus small allowances for food and travel. Jury Service: What you can claim) Is this worth mentioning, and has it been addressed? JezGrove (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]