Comments | jilesa: Bleah

jilesa

Bleah

Aug 10, 2006 19:23

I loathe jury duty. I loathe it with a passion heretofore reserved for people who can't parallel their huge SUVs on city streets and those who go straight from right turn only lanes. (Anyone who's ever been in a car with me knows that this is not a trivial level of loathing ( Read more... )

social commentary

Comments 7

nsingman August 11 2006, 01:06:53 UTC

One way to improve the system would be to eliminate compulsory jury service, so that the sensible people who normally maneuver their way off juries would serve when it was convenient for them. And if we ended the criminalization of victimless crimes, such as the foolish, corrupting and counterproductive war on drugs, we wouldn't need nearly as many trials.

I'd love to serve on a jury one day, were I invited to earn the princely sum of $5/day rather than summoned under penalty of fine or imprisonment. Violate my XIIIth Amendment rights, and you've bought yourself one very recalcitrant juror (who in a criminal trial, can guarantee that there won't be a verdict). :-)

drdemure August 11 2006, 05:41:12 UTC

In my experience, sentient, educated and cogent people don't get called to serve on jury duty. And when they do get called, it isn't for important crimes of the day. And it is never for a drug charge. What all of the above people get called for is "he said, she said" traffic offenses.

I don't know where they get juries for things that seem to matter, but I certainly have never been on one, and I come from a relatively small pool. I, as a regular member of the jury pool, expect to be called for civil offenses. I don't actively seek a murder trial, but if it is going to happen anyway, couldn't you choose me? I'm dying a thousnd deaths here.

jilesa August 11 2006, 10:30:57 UTC

As much as I loathe jury duty, I don't agree with you that it would all be better if it were voluntary. If it were voluntary, the only people who would do it would be idealists who actually believe in the system, those who are looking for the stipend (in MD, it's $15/day, which is at least enough for a couple of meals when you're poor), or those who have a stake in the way a particular case turns out and time their service so as to be chosen for that case. In my experience thus far, the first group are actually the *least* likely to be chosen because they tend to demonstrate too much evidence of intelligence for the lawyers to accept them. I've got no issue with the second group, but I'd hate to see the third group encouraged by smaller jury pools to think they could influence a case...

nsingman August 11 2006, 13:53:34 UTC

You make some very valid points, but I believe that they could be addressed by the defending and prosecuting attorneys during voir dire at least as well as they are now. There will always be people simply looking for an excuse to get out of work (and get a few extra bucks), and there will always be people looking to send a message to the state or the defendant. However, by making jury service voluntary rather than coercive, we solve two problems: the problem of the XIIIth amendment violation, and the problem of bitter jurors angry about being forced to serve.

Thread 6

drdemure August 11 2006, 05:27:46 UTC

I am one of the few people I know who has been called to serve in every jurisdiction I've ever decided to live in. I've been served six time, sat on a jury once, been threatened with jail for having moved out of a jurisdiction. been called three times in seven years since I've lived in VA. Fortunately, I live in a small town where there are lots of seniors available to serve. But still ( ... )