Should jury service be voluntary?

[The Boy Who Cried Worf]

We should probably move toward professional juries who are fairly compensated for their time. One question I have is if jurors are so all fired important why are the judges and the lawyers in that room being paid six figure salaries and I am getting gas money.

At the very least we should try and not interrupt people's regular lives. I have been unemployed forever and I haven't gotten a jury summons in all that time. I would have been happy to have something to do and get a little compensation for it.

 

[John Picard]

We should probably move toward professional juries who are fairly compensated for their time. One question I have is if jurors are so all fired important why are the judges and the lawyers in that room being paid six figure salaries and I am getting gas money.

At the very least we should try and not interrupt people's regular lives. I have been unemployed forever and I haven't gotten a jury summons in all that time. I would have been happy to have something to do and get a little compensation for it.

***WRONG***

 

[The Boy Who Cried Worf]

We should probably move toward professional juries who are fairly compensated for their time. One question I have is if jurors are so all fired important why are the judges and the lawyers in that room being paid six figure salaries and I am getting gas money.

At the very least we should try and not interrupt people's regular lives. I have been unemployed forever and I haven't gotten a jury summons in all that time. I would have been happy to have something to do and get a little compensation for it.

***WRONG***

Well I can't argue with that.

 

[snakespeare]

^You certainly can't! Because he's right!

 

[StarryEyed]

He might have elaborated on it though. At least he didn't include his usual roll-eyes smiley.

A "professional" jury would defeat the whole point. It is a constitutional right to be tried by one's peers. That way, you don't have to worry about the possible tyranny and/or corruption of a judge or a "professional" jury. The idea is that a trial by your peers is more likely to be fair to you.

 

[The Boy Who Cried Worf]

He might have elaborated on it though. At least he didn't include his usual roll-eyes smiley.

A "professional" jury would defeat the whole point. It is a constitutional right to be tried by one's peers. That way, you don't have to worry about the possible tyranny and/or corruption of a judge or a "professional" jury. The idea is that a trial by your peers is more likely to be fair to you.

I think we've had a lot of problems with the "jury of your peers" concept as well, as historically it has proved to be very difficult to adequately define. Since we have no problem defining juries as any random 12 people I think a jury made up of average people who simply have this as there job because they think they might like it would still qualify under that definition. And you think jurors are incapable of being corrupted? Have you ever heard of the Mafia?

 

[Guartho]

I was in the pool once during an ongoing series of shoots (self-employed videographer) and I called the clerk with all the shoot dates. Then I got a letter summoning me for one of the dates that I had supposedly already been cleared to not be summoned. I had to call back and hear about how that date was supposedly not among the ones I gave them, but I did get out of it.

I really didn't want to "get out of it," but when you're a two-man show and the client has both of you chasing factory-reps that came in from out-of-state, it's a big problem to not show up. Thankfully the judge excused me. I'd like to do my civic duty, just not when it has the potential to kill my business.

 

[Sheep]

The last time I was summoned for jury duty, it was for a two month trial in November that would've lasted past Christmas two years ago. The problem? The jurors had to take off the entire time from work and be present every day. There aren't many (if any) employers who will compensate you for TWO MONTHS of jury duty, which meant the vast majority of the room (there were hundreds of people there) declined due to financial hardship. Who did that leave? Older people, the unemployed and some students...I wonder how close to a "jury of peers" that wound up being.

Regardless, the American jury system is a joke anyway. Apparently telling the lawyers you have a degree in the social sciences (psychology, in particular...which I actually do have) will get you out of it every single time.

 

[DonIago]

While I theoretically fully support involuntary jury duty and believe everyone should serve at some time or another, I'm in a financial situation where going from my normal wages to $30/day meant that if I'd actually ended up on a trial I would have been unable to pay rent. I can't imagine that was the intended outcome.

Making the argument that it would be a financial hardship got me out of one batch of jury selections, out of 3-4 total...and it's entirely possible that in each batch I could end up on more than one case.

I considered the argument that I would be prejudiced in that I would push for whatever outcome caused the case to end quickest.

 

[Snaploud]

There are some major downsides to the current system. Large groups of people (especially the young, as noted above) barely ever get chosen for juries. Of course, all possible systems have potential downsides, so it might just be the best of all possible options.

 

[StarryEyed]

He might have elaborated on it though. At least he didn't include his usual roll-eyes smiley.

A "professional" jury would defeat the whole point. It is a constitutional right to be tried by one's peers. That way, you don't have to worry about the possible tyranny and/or corruption of a judge or a "professional" jury. The idea is that a trial by your peers is more likely to be fair to you.

I think we've had a lot of problems with the "jury of your peers" concept as well, as historically it has proved to be very difficult to adequately define. Since we have no problem defining juries as any random 12 people I think a jury made up of average people who simply have this as there job because they think they might like it would still qualify under that definition. And you think jurors are incapable of being corrupted? Have you ever heard of the Mafia?

Oh, I know it isn't perfect. I just wanted to help DarkJourney understand the intent of the system without dismissing him as some mindless idiot. Some people equate ignorance with stupidity but I'm not one of them. We are all ignorant in some areas - none of us have the capacity to know everything.

Assuming a professional jury or a judge could be trusted to be reasonably free from corruption, that is what I would prefer if I was on trial. They have a professional understanding of impartiality that amateurs might lack. But some people will have an inherent distrust of the government and those people should have the option of trial by their peers. It's a core right in our system of government.

The involuntary juror thing sucks in practicality as they are not likely to be a good juror. I guess the screening process weeds those people out though.

 

[Haggis and tatties]

No it works perfectly well in its present state, i quite enjoyed it last time i was called up, nothing major at the time really, but its interesting to see the inside workings of these courts.

 

[RJDiogenes]

No, Jury Service should not be voluntary. Everyone has the Right to a jury of their peers, and therefore a responsibility to be one of those peers for somebody else. The call-up system is way too random, though, and jurors should be adequately compensated.

 

[Snaploud]

Actually, the right of a jury of one's peers is a function of British common law. It doesn't have any basis in U.S. law.

 

[Bloodwhiner]

I've been called in the past - in Florida the state pays a whopping $10 a day. Currently I'm on call for federal jury duty, if I'm called in the feds will pay $40 per day plus 50¢ a mile to commute.

The state amount is just a joke and while the feds are closer to reality, I think the pay amount should at least be equal to minimum wage. In criminal cases the state coffers should pay for it. In civil cases it should be billed as part of the court costs to the plaintiff with the state guaranteeing payment.

What bugs me is the attorney games to get the biggest morons they can find on the jury. If you have any intelligence or ability to think and reason they don't want you. That is just wrong in my opinion; yes it is legal but that is corrupting the system.

When a jury is selected through voir dire those with obvious conflicts (cops, spouses, crime victims, etc) should be excused. But stop with the legal psychology and go with who is left. the fact that I can read a newspaper should not disqualify me.

 

[snakespeare]

^ I agree about the minimum wage part, for sure. Overall, I think a day or two without pay is fine if you are performing a service to your community, because it's not your neighbor's rights you are protecting, it's your own! So the overall gain is inestimable.

I say the same for military service. The pay is shit, but the Constitution is worth protecting.

 

[John Picard]

^ I agree about the minimum wage part, for sure. Overall, I think a day or two without pay is fine if you are performing a service to your community, because it's not your neighbor's rights you are protecting, it's your own! So the overall gain is inestimable.

I say the same for military service. The pay is shit, but the Constitution is worth protecting.

I can see that you've never served in the military.

 

[SmoothieX]

I got paid by my regular job at my regular rate while on jury duty, so I received nothing from the court.

 

[Bears Discover Fire]

I got paid a whopping $5 a day and had to take out an emergency loan to pay my rent that month. The court said 'fuck you, you don't have any dependents' to my hardship claim.

A bat shit insane racist woman on our jury was convinced the obviously guilty defendant in our simple burglary case was the victim of a vast government conspiracy and that the victims of his crime were 'dirty' middle eastern women out to steal all of America's men (). She threw out all the ample evidence, including the tape of the burglar messing with security cameras.

We were locked in a room with her screaming horrid self for 4 days while the judge refused to let us declare a deadlock.

The defendant went free.

It was 'enlightening' all right. Our justice system is a joke, a fact only confirmed to me when my assailant who strangled me, broke my foot, and gnawed the cheeks off of somone else was allowed to plead 5 counts of felony battery down to one count of misdemeanor assault and got a short jail sentence and a four hour seminar on how not to hit people.

I am greatly resentful of compulsory jury duty, and of our system in general.

 

[John Picard]

I got paid a whopping $5 a day and had to take out an emergency loan to pay my rent that month. The court said 'fuck you, you don't have any dependents' to my hardship claim.

A bat shit insane racist woman on our jury was convinced the obviously guilty defendant in our simple burglary case was the victim of a vast government conspiracy and that the victims of his crime were 'dirty' middle eastern women out to steal all of America's men (). She threw out all the ample evidence, including the tape of the burglar messing with security cameras.

We were locked in a room with her screaming horrid self for 4 days while the judge refused to let us declare a deadlock.

The defendant went free.

Sounds like an issue of judicial misconduct and w complaint should be filed.

It was 'enlightening' all right. Our justice system is a joke, a fact only confirmed to me when my assailant who strangled me, broke my foot, and gnawed the cheeks off of somone else was allowed to plead 5 counts of felony battery down to one count of misdemeanor assault and got a short jail sentence and a four hour seminar on how not to hit people.

I am greatly resentful of compulsory jury duty, and of our system in general.

This is where the plea agreement process as well as lawyers are to blame.