Should jury service be voluntary?

[Franklin]

This pretty much sums it up for me:

"The jury system puts a ban upon intelligence and honesty, and a premium upon ignorance, stupidity and perjury. It is a shame that we must continue to use a worthless system because it was good a thousand years ago...I desire to tamper with the jury law. I wish to so alter it as to put a premium on intelligence and character, and close the jury box against idiots, blacklegs, and people who do not read newspapers. But no doubt I shall be defeated--every effort I make to save the country 'misses fire.'"
Mark Twain - Roughing It

Somewhere between the play Twelve Angry Men and the actual results of the O.J. Simpson trial is the real worth of juries. But I don't think whether people volunteer to be on a jury or are told to show up as a civic duty matters in the end. It's about the competition between the lawyers to create a jury out of the pool. And, they will try to get the types of juries they want out of whatever pool they are given.

 

[Holdfast]

Not to put the cat amongst the pigeons but IMO the whole "jury of peers" thing is a bit ridiculous anyway. If I was being tried, I could plausibly argue that most people on the jury would not be my peers. Being someone's peer implies more than just being another human being. Of course, that argument wouldn't be accepted in law, but that doesn't make it any less true.

In the old days, this was recognised in the judicial system - true "peers" (as in Peers of the Realm) were allowed to be tried by the House of Lords, not commoners. Now, I'm not saying a class-based system should be used for selecting a jury of peers, but the current system is certainly flawed enough for me not to feel even the merest trace of guilt at not wanting to serve on a jury if I were to lose money as a result of it.

 

[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.

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

USS Barney DDG-6. I was a cook in the mid-70s.

 

[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.

USS Barney DDG-6. I was a cook in the mid-70s.

I see. Well, I stand corrected. The pay isn't really shit anymore, unless you're one of those idiots who enlists and/or is married with 3+ kids and is trying (for lack of a better word) to live on E3 pay.

 

[The Boy Who Cried Worf]

Not to put the cat amongst the pigeons but IMO the whole "jury of peers" thing is a bit ridiculous anyway. If I was being tried, I could plausibly argue that most people on the jury would not be my peers. Being someone's peer implies more than just being another human being. Of course, that argument wouldn't be accepted in law, but that doesn't make it any less true.

In the old days, this was recognised in the judicial system - true "peers" (as in Peers of the Realm) were allowed to be tried by the House of Lords, not commoners. Now, I'm not saying a class-based system should be used for selecting a jury of peers, but the current system is certainly flawed enough for me not to feel even the merest trace of guilt at not wanting to serve on a jury if I were to lose money as a result of it.

Of course in America the hot potato with that has been race. If you don't take race into account you get verdicts like Emmit Till. If you take it too much you get verdicts like O.J. Simpson.

^ 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.

USS Barney DDG-6. I was a cook in the mid-70s.

Were you one of those cooks like Steven Segal in Under Siege?

 

[snakespeare]

Not to put the cat amongst the pigeons but IMO the whole "jury of peers" thing is a bit ridiculous anyway. If I was being tried, I could plausibly argue that most people on the jury would not be my peers. Being someone's peer implies more than just being another human being. Of course, that argument wouldn't be accepted in law, but that doesn't make it any less true.

In the old days, this was recognised in the judicial system - true "peers" (as in Peers of the Realm) were allowed to be tried by the House of Lords, not commoners. Now, I'm not saying a class-based system should be used for selecting a jury of peers, but the current system is certainly flawed enough for me not to feel even the merest trace of guilt at not wanting to serve on a jury if I were to lose money as a result of it.

Of course in America the hot potato with that has been race. If you don't take race into account you get verdicts like Emmit Till. If you take it too much you get verdicts like O.J. Simpson.

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

USS Barney DDG-6. I was a cook in the mid-70s.

Were you one of those cooks like Steven Segal in Under Siege?

LOL! Great movie. No, the most violent thing I ever did was bang the serving spoon onto a tray trying to dislodge a wad of mashed potatoes.

 

[BigFoot]

^ Sounds dangerous.