Jury duty

I think it depends how it affects you. I'd do it and be fine. Others might find having to deal with the social contact too much or be worried their communication might fall apart under the stress.

Clearly, jury duty is a civic duty and just not wanting to is not a good enough reason for anyone to be excused. However, if there are particular aspects of your autistic profile which would make it difficult for you, I would outline that as your reason to seek excusal. Your GP might back you up with a letter.

I agree that autism, in itself, shouldn't be seen as a reason not to serve.

I am a magistrate. I do it on a volunteer basis once a month. We sit as a 3-member panel and are both judge and jury in criminal cases with power to imprison for up to 12 months.

I find it very draining and stressful. The small-talk in the retiring room between cases is painful and the planning to accommodate it is problematic for me (rota is published 6 months in advance but diary management is a very weak area and I always seem to end up double booked and having to try and find a way to keep my court commitment at the expense of the other thing) but I do it because I feel a strong public service compulsion.

I can't count the number of times I have sat on a bench with a generic bossy type who has instantly decided what the verdict and sentence should be and a generic meek type who just agrees with them, and it has fallen to me - the probable autistic - to stubbornly insist that we walk through the reasoning out loud following a logical process, point out all the bits of information they haven't heard or connections that they haven't made in following the chain of events, explain where they are focused on bits of evidence that are irrelevant to the decision that needs to be made and make myself very unpopular with my 2 fellow magistrates in the process. It often changes the outcome though, and I find that sometimes I only need to be difficult and really push my point for the first case that is up, and then my colleagues become a lot more thoughtful in their deliberations for the rest of the day.

I think autistic people an bring a lot of much needed rigour, balance and insight to court proceedings and should be encouraged and supported to participate on juries, if they are able to manage the anxiety this causes. Of course I understand that this may not always be possible.

I just wanted to highlight the positive aspects of being an autistic juror

Raphael said:

I just wanted to highlight the positive aspects of being an autistic juror

Forgive me, but I feel you're seriously failing to see the wider picture here; especially that you don't seem to acknowledge the existence of the issue that even the conduct and correspondence of the court by itself can result in the consequences of someone having a significant panic attack or even bring one about just by being in a courthouse, and people receiving threat letters of a fine for non-compliance is certainly not going to end well.

As someone with aspergers autism: seriously, we understand the law...but the law needs to understand us.

For the conversation as a whole, if you want any good tips from me to avoid provoking a panic attack in a vulnerable person, here are few starting points to consider...

• Avoid wearing/using formal symbols (wigs, gowns, etc)
• Use simple language, don't use jargon unless there is no other equivalent meaning
• Avoid direct eye contact
• Don't raise your voice or try to make it sound forceful
• Don't force someone out of their own mental pace

Raphael said:

I just wanted to highlight the positive aspects of being an autistic juror

Forgive me, but I feel you're seriously failing to see the wider picture here; especially that you don't seem to acknowledge the existence of the issue that even the conduct and correspondence of the court by itself can result in the consequences of someone having a significant panic attack or even bring one about just by being in a courthouse, and people receiving threat letters of a fine for non-compliance is certainly not going to end well.

As someone with aspergers autism: seriously, we understand the law...but the law needs to understand us.

For the conversation as a whole, if you want any good tips from me to avoid provoking a panic attack in a vulnerable person, here are few starting points to consider...

• Avoid wearing/using formal symbols (wigs, gowns, etc)
• Use simple language, don't use jargon unless there is no other equivalent meaning
• Avoid direct eye contact
• Don't raise your voice or try to make it sound forceful
• Don't force someone out of their own mental pace

Thanks,

I wasn't commenting on the interactions of the legal system with autistic people generally and whether it needs treats them equitably or needs to be more accommodating. I think that's an entirely different conversation. I don't think I have failed to acknowledge the issue - I just wasn't aware we were ranging that far.

I stand by what I say, that being an autistic person in the abstract is neither excuse nor disqualification from serving on a jury and in some cases may even be a benefit (to the process, if not the individual). However, an individual's own personal anxiety profile as an autistic person, or other aspects of that, may excuse them from serving, but only they will know that so I wouldn't presume to comment.

I think it's possible to take a positive position on autistic people's contribution to the system, as it currently stands, without detracting from any argument for change or reform or more inclusive practice. 

Your response has reminded me not to assume other people see things the same way I do though.
I find the formality of the process helpful. Others don't.
I would find a less formal process with no hard edges difficult to navigate or understand. Others would find it makes things more accessible.

I would much rather get a letter telling me bluntly "do X or face Y penalty. Explain if you can't" than a softer communication that left me unclear about expectations or having to guess 'how serious/formal/necessary is this actually' because the language is softer but is now ambiguous. That would make me anxious and I would seriously over-think it but other people would find it a vast improvement.
But that's probably only me - I mean I just spent three days puzzling out this comment... 

Sometimes autistic people have no option but appear as victims and witnesses too. I would hope the court gets some briefing on how that impacts on that individual's communication and processing and things about the things you mention above and more for them too.