Jessica Mello•8 months ago I served on a jury for a long and complex case of a very violent crime. My comments are based on that experience. Seniors: Inside the jury room, I found that older jurors were excellent contributors - they brought life experience, wisdom, calm, balance and perspective. We should welcome and encourage seniors to serve on juries, not exclude them automatically. I propose that eligibility for seniors be linked to holding a valid driver’s license, with no upper limit - if you can drive a car, you can serve on a jury! The current proposals already include excusal based on a simple doctor’s note, so any mobility, hearing, sight, cognitive or other health issues are covered. Advanced age itself could be added as a valid reason to request excusal. Rather than automatically excluding the best potential jurors due solely to age, I suggest simply offering reasonable ways to opt out. Opting in: Many people try to avoid jury duty as it can be incredibly disruptive to family and work lives. To work within this modern reality, I propose allowing people to ‘opt in’ for a fixed period of time when their life situation allows. Eg, when they retire, become empty nesters, take a career break, or even when university students take summer holidays or a gap year. If volunteers were exempted for several years after serving, people might be incentivised to opt in at a convenient moment in life. Volunteers would supplement, not replace, random selection, to avoid distorting the pool. There would need to be limits and safeguards, screening out volunteers with improper motives and preventing people becoming ‘professional jurors’. Citizenship: As a Bermudian, I would welcome participation in juries from long term residents, spouses of Bermudians, PRCs, BOTCs, long term (10 years+) work permit holders and their spouses. They are subject to the same criminal justice system as Bermudians and it seems fair to allow them to participate as jurors. On the other hand, I understand that individuals unable to vote in our elections may feel that being required to serve on a jury is unfair, so I suggest that a principled objection could be a valid reason for excusal.Past convictions: On the one hand, people with prior convictions could bring a different perspective on crime and justice that could benefit discussions in the jury room. On the other hand, there should be safeguards to avoid improper influence on other jurors, eg, by excluding those convicted of crimes of dishonesty like fraud and money laundering, or whose crime was connected to or similar to the case at hand. Serving on a jury was a profound experience for me - I learned more about our justice system than I could have imagined. Reforms should make it easier for all of us to participate in this essential institution at least once in our lives.
