I live in New Zealand, and I only know the answer for New Zealand. We were the first country to give women the vote (in 1983 I think), and our laws are strongly based on British law, so my guess is that most other Western countries gave women the vote at a similar time to us or a bit later.
Short answer: In New Zealand, women could volunteer as jurors from 1942; women were called up for jury service from 1963 (but serving was not compulsory and few women served as jurors); jury service became compulsory for women in 1976.
Longer answer:
In New Zealand, common juries have existed from 1841 for every 'British' man over 21 who owned property, and from 1844 for every 'British' man over 21 (of good fame and character).
In 1942 it became possible for women to serve as jurors - but only if they volunteered for it, and if they were of a more mature age (by 1961 they were eligible to serve from the age of 21).
Women's organisations urged for jury service to be made compulsory for women, but this was persistently rejected (on the grounds that mothers of small children would have difficulty finding childcare).
Women's organisations petitioned the Government, and eventually some compromise legislation was passed. The Juries Amendment Act of 1963 meant that women were eligible to be called up for jury service just like men - however women were given an absolute right to have their name withdrawn on request.
The Juries Amendment Act 1976 made it compulsory for women to serve as jurors.
It wasn't until 1965 that Maori men (indigenous New Zealanders) had an equal right to serve on jury trials (before that they could only serve on trials where a Maori was the accused).
Non-citizens, woman
Nope.
No, you wouldn't.
The jury of executive opinion has the benefit of being a very quick way to provide forecasts from a diverse group of managers who know the strengths and weaknesses of their company. The biggest drawback is that it is overly reliant on opinions, and averaging these opinions may not give the most reliable forecast.
Because women be shopping.
Jurors serving on a jury. And you can visit Jurassic Park.
Serving on a jury involves listening to evidence and arguments presented in a court case, deliberating with other jurors to reach a verdict based on the law, and ensuring justice is served. It is a civic duty that allows individuals to participate in the legal system and make decisions that impact the lives of others.
Serving on a jury !
serving in the military if drafted -Apex paying income taxes -Apex serving on a jury -Apex
In California, a standard jury consists of 12 jurors for criminal cases and 8 jurors for civil cases.
No. Unless serving in the military or suffering a debilitating injury, jury duty is a civic requirement and it is a crime to avoid it. If your employer (aside from the U.S. Armed Forces) prohibits you from serving jury duty, they are committing a crime and you can file a complaint with your state's department of labor.
no
Yes it is.
Yes, serving on a jury is a responsibility of Australian citizenship. In addition, this question appears on the Australian citizenship test.
Thomas Jefferson did believed that serving on a jury is even more important than voting.
THE CORRECT ANWSER IS Jury service is considered a civic duty while voting is a responsibility.
THE CORRECT ANWSER IS Jury service is considered a civic duty while voting is a responsibility.