Jury duty is involuntary servitude and deprivation of property (1 Viewer)

[Bodi]

No, slavery was all of it.

Then why does it say "slavery nor involuntary servitude"?

This is already starting off bad...

No, payment (or specifically the acceptance of it) means you are not a slave, it means you have entered into a voluntary contract

I posted the definition for you. Not my fault you fail to understand it.

You could also argue that accepting US citizenship also means you consent to the draft (if applicable) and to jury service.

One could argue that but then that person would be arguing for violating people's rights by violating the 13th Amendment.

But since conscripts and jurors receive/accept payment, this does not apply.

Again, you need to read the definition. Force is the issue. If you force a person against their will but pay them... you are still force them. That is Involuntary. That means they did not Volunteer.

If you didn't volunteer, but you find yourself doing it anyway, it's involuntary.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/involuntary#:~:text=If%20you%20volunteered%20to%20do,doing%20it%20anyway%2C%20it's%20involuntary.

Since they will be punished if they refuse, or leave, they are being coerced... look, there is a ton of shit here that you apparently do not understand.

Please cite a case where an attorney has ever used the 13th Amendment to oppose the draft/jury service

I never made that argument.

Please also cite a reputable legal scholar who says the 13th Amendment applies to either case.

The Supreme Court upheld that conscription did not violate the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude, or the First Amendment's protection of freedom of conscience. Joseph McKenna · Oliver W.

Appeal to Authority.

Selective Draft Law Cases - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It seems you're claiming to know more about the Constitution than the justices of the Supreme Court.

I am claiming that I understand basic English better than them, and you, though.

It seems you're claiming to know more about the Constitution than the justices of the Supreme Court.

SCOTUS also ruled that slavery was legal and the discrimination was legal... they also ruled incorrectly about the 2nd Amendment. Are you now going to argue that Plessy v Ferguson was a good ruling? By your logic you should.

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Abolition of Slavery (1865)

EnlargeDownload Link Citation: The House Joint Resolution Proposing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, January 31, 1865; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress, 1789-1999; General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives. View All Pages in the National...

www.archives.gov

​

(8) Involuntary servitude The term “involuntary servitude” includes a condition of servitude induced by means of— (A) any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe that, if the person did not enter into or continue in such condition, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint; or (B) the abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process.
Definition: involuntary servitude from 22 USC § 7102(8) | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[Bodi]

Pay in the military isn’t that great either. Citizenship is a bitch sometimes.

People volunteer for the Military unless there is a draft... which is unconstitutional just as Jury Service and Slavery is.

 

[Nickyjo]

People volunteer for the Military unless there is a draft... which is unconstitutional just as Jury Service and Slavery is.

Interesting you argue that. We are a community, dependent on one another. You’re entitled to your opinion, that is, if you don’t think we have certain obligations to that community, put out your own fires, catch your own muggers, etc., you can sue. Has anyone challenged jury duty as slavery? Taxes as theft? Zoning laws as violative of property rights, smog checks and speed limits as tyranny?

 

[Bodi]

Interesting you argue that.

It is just an argument. I have been summoned to Jury Duty seven times... went to all of them.

We are a community, dependent on one another. You’re entitled to your opinion, that is, if you don’t think we have certain obligations to that community, put out your own fires, catch your own muggers, etc., you can sue. Has anyone challenged jury duty as slavery? Taxes as theft? Zoning laws as violative of property rights, smog checks and speed limits as tyranny?

I was in the Fire Brigade... I understand that very well.

 

[Lovebug]

This only matters if the flag behind the judge has a gold fringe.

Whud?

 

[Lovebug]

A bad day of jury duty is better than a good day at work.

If you can sit still for more than 5 mins.

 

[Lovebug]

Thirty dollars a day is not enough to negate the reality that this is deprivation of liberty and property, forcible detention to provide involuntary servitude to the state.

For lots of people $30 a day is a blessing. Consider yourself lucky.

If our courts want to cling to traditionalism from the Dark Ages, involuntarily detaining people to force them to provide labor executing court functions, they should pay enough to make it worth jurors' time. Using the magic words "civic duty" should not give the courts an excuse to detain people, waste extreme amounts of their time, and compensate them at a rate that would be illegal across both the private and public sectors. The "civic duty" would be much more fairly met by the taxes people paid broadly to make it worth jurors' time.

We live in a society, consider yourself lucky to belong

Full disclosure: For 12 years, I worked jobs that would have paid my full salary while on jury duty. Since going into self-employment 4 years ago, and thus standing to lose 100% of my income for every day I have to be in court, I've been summoned for jury duty 4 times in 4 years. My father has been summoned once in 45 years of eligibility.

The luck of the draw.

 

[JasperL]

45 years old and have never been picked to be on a jury.

Got a summons a few times and was never even called in.

It's weird. I was called three times, in two states, in just 4 years or so. Served as a juror on two civil trials. Other time just checked in daily, but never had to go in.

The other roughly 36 years or so as an eligible juror, nothing.

 

[Port & Starboard]

Been called 3 times for jury pools in Norfolk.

Long boring mornings just sitting there waiting, and having to listen to the people jammed in around me.

I would much prefer a trial by judge after my experiences listening to many of my "so called peers" in the jury pool waiting room.

 

[Port & Starboard]

I remember a older guy that got passed over on a juror selection for civil suit against a Newport News credit union. The judge asked the pool to raise their hands if being selected would cause any undue hardships......or other blah blah blah.

The old guy raised his hand, and when the judge came around to asking him for his reason he said..............

I gotta pee every 15 minutes.

Everyone in the courtroom sat right up, turned, and looked over at the man. I could see that almost everyone in the courtroom were all doing their best not to bust out laughing. Even the judge turned his head away for a few seconds trying to hide his grin.

 

[Jason Warfield]

the Draft is unconstitutional

Well, no.

Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918)

Selective Draft Law Cases: The Thirteenth Amendment protection against involuntary servitude and the First Amendment protection on freedom of thought do not prevent the federal government from implementing a military draft.

supreme.justia.com

 

[Slartibartfast]

Whud?

Its an insane legal theory by insane people.

 

[Jason Warfield]

Thirty dollars a day is not enough to negate the reality that this is deprivation of liberty and property, forcible detention to provide involuntary servitude to the state. If our courts want to cling to traditionalism from the Dark Ages, involuntarily detaining people to force them to provide labor executing court functions, they should pay enough to make it worth jurors' time. Using the magic words "civic duty" should not give the courts an excuse to detain people, waste extreme amounts of their time, and compensate them at a rate that would be illegal across both the private and public sectors. The "civic duty" would be much more fairly met by the taxes people paid broadly to make it worth jurors' time.


Full disclosure: For 12 years, I worked jobs that would have paid my full salary while on jury duty. Since going into self-employment 4 years ago, and thus standing to lose 100% of my income for every day I have to be in court, I've been summoned for jury duty 4 times in 4 years. My father has been summoned once in 45 years of eligibility.

Nothing prevents you from rescheduling your work for another day of the week. That's what my parents did with their business if they wanted to: usually rescheduled what they needed to do with clients to another day. Since you have prior notice when you get your summons, you can make arrangements. Since you have the ability to make arrangements, that is usually why the courts won't allow you to be exempt due to financial hardship. You have to have a REALLY compelling reason for that to happen.

If you are self-employed and contractual....that actually makes life a little bit easier: it doesn't really matter as you will get paid by whatever the contract stipulates as you have negotiated it. So, as long as you meet the demands of the contract (and yes, jury duty is a protected civic duty so it won't break your contract), it doesn't matter.

Private employers are not obligated to pay you when you are at jury duty. So, the rate you do get paid for is legal. Also, the rate is not to replace your salary, but as a method of reimbursement for travel/parking, which no one is obligated to do, private or public. So, since it is really reimbursement, it isn't considered wages, so wage/salary laws do not apply for the government to pay you for lost wages that day. However, if you are employed and salaried, it cannot be deducted from your paycheck. If you work by wage per hour, then you simply don't get paid as your employer will either reschedule you or just short you a shift that, again, unless you are contractually obligated to have, can be done.

Imagine how much taxes would go up if the courts had to pay what you expect. At that point...you would still lose income to pay for others to get paid to go to jury duty, so you still lose your income on that account anyway.

But jury duty is the price we pay to have an impartial jury as required by the Constitution for the benefit of all American citizens. That's what people seem to forget: you won't get a fair trial without it, and do you really want to equate a freedom to a matter of cost? Especially when it could be your butt that needs an impartial jury? Because life happens, and there is no guarantee that you won't ever be forced to be a defendant.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

Called for jury duty, chosen for a case -- gave me a much-needed break from a job I held where there was a toxic workplace culture!

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Dont make crap up. If it's being used in a legal context, let's see a legal definition. Here's two:

involuntary servitude​

(8) Involuntary servitude The term “involuntary servitude” includes a condition of servitude induced by means of— (A) any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe that, if the person did not enter into or continue in such condition, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint; or (B) the abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process.​

​

Definition: involuntary servitude from 22 USC § 7102(8) | LII / Legal Information Institute

--and--

Involuntary Servitude​

​

Summary: Section 1584 of Title 18 makes it unlawful to hold a person in a condition of slavery, that is, a condition of compulsory service or labor against his/her will. A Section 1584 conviction requires that the victim be held against his/her will by actual force, threats of force, or threats of legal coercion. Section 1584 also prohibits compelling a person to work against his/her will by creating a "climate of fear" through the use of force, the threat of force, or the threat of legal coercion [i.e., If you don't work, I'll call the immigration officials.] which is sufficient to compel service against a person's will.​

​

Involuntary Servitude, Forced Labor, And Sex Trafficking Statutes Enforced

www.justice.gov

Are there consequences if you dont respond to jury duty summons? Yes, right?

This is not relevant as it’s not part of the 13th amendment

 

[Neomalthusian]

It's the called the price of citizenship. It involves GIVING BACK to your community and your country. Most people think of this as a small price to pay to live in a country such as ours. The callous, arrogant and ungrateful want to know what is in it for them.

It's not giving when you're being forced by a court under threat of a bench warrant to surrender it. That is a taking. Giving is voluntary.

State, county and local governments have many, many very important functions and services to figure out how to obtain for in order for us all to be able to 'live in a country such as ours.' How do they obtain all these services? Through taxation, the proceeds from which are used to fairly compensate those who provide services to government agencies or as government employees.

What necessitates such extreme underpayment of jurors relative to every other type of service government needs done? Explain why it is apparently so important to intentionally drastically under-compensate jurors.

Jury service is not involuntary servitude. Involuntary servitude is merely a euphemism for chattel slavery which is what the thirteenth amendment was made to prohibit. Being a jury does not make one property of another.

The jury situation in our country meets a plain reading of the definition of involuntary servitude, as another member demonstrated shortly following this post.

For lots of people $30 a day is a blessing. Consider yourself lucky.

And yet if any organization or institution, public or private, offers $30 per day to an individual in exchange for his or her services, even for a temporary period of time, and even if that individual explicitly agreed to those terms, it would be illegal and regarded as exploitative under our laws. So even if you think a lot of people would consider $30/day a blessing, government disagrees and considers it illegal. But it makes an exception for itself in this particular case.

Is there a particular reason you think it's important that we pay jurors drastically less than society agrees even its lowest-paid employees must be paid?

 

[Neomalthusian]

Pay in the military isn’t that great either. Citizenship is a bitch sometimes.

Even if it isn't 'that great,' it's apparently sufficient that people will show up and voluntarily enlist, given we haven't conscripted people into the military for over 50 years. If jury service were voluntary, obviously I wouldn't have started this thread, regardless of whether I personally felt the compensation was sufficient or not.

 

[Visbek]

It's not giving when you're being forced by a court under threat of a bench warrant to surrender it....

1) It's the same as taxes, which are not "involuntary servitude."

2) You already admitted you didn't care when your employer paid you, and you're only complaining now because you're self-employed. Something doesn't become "involuntary servitude" just because they compensate you to your satisfaction.

In other words, your real complaint is that they aren't paying you enough. You should drop the self-righteous nonsense, as your actual motivations are evident.

What necessitates such extreme underpayment of jurors relative to every other type of service government needs done?

Your state doesn't want to pay for it. If you don't like it, go talk to your state legislators.

And yet if any organization or institution, public or private, offers $30 per day to an individual in exchange for his or her services, even for a temporary period of time, and even if that individual explicitly agreed to those terms, it would be illegal and regarded as exploitative under our laws.

Jury duty is not a job.

 

[Rich2018]

Then why does it say "slavery nor involuntary servitude"?

Because the writers were using legal language in order to be all encompassing
Slavery implies that the person(s) subject to it are legally owned

Whereas if someone is forced to work against their will, but no claim of ownership of their body is made, that would be "involuntary servitude"
An example would be the Union POWs that were taken, in the then recently concluded US Civil War

One could argue that but then that person would be arguing for violating people's rights by violating the 13th Amendment.

One could, but as shown, it is a flawed argument.

Again, you need to read the definition. Force is the issue. If you force a person against their will but pay them... you are still force them. That is Involuntary. That means they did not Volunteer.

Appeal to Authority.

The justices of the Supreme Court did

And I'd much rather appeal to their authority, regarding US constitutional issues, than to some guy off the internet, from New Zealand.

I am claiming that I understand basic English better than them, and you, though.

So you're right and the US Supreme Court is wrong regarding a US constitutional issue ?
What do you do for a living again ? Are you a lawyer ?
Are you aware of a single reputable legal source that says the draft violates the 13th Amendment ?

Must be infuriating to be always right and have no-one believe you
Are you familiar with Cassandra in Greek mythology ?

Cassandra - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Her story must resonate with you.

SCOTUS also ruled that slavery was legal and the discrimination was legal... they also ruled incorrectly about the 2nd Amendment. Are you now going to argue that Plessy v Ferguson was a good ruling? By your logic you should.

Well slavery used to be legal in the USA, indeed it was constitutionally protected in the world's only ever pro-slavery constitution

With regard to the 2nd Amendment, yes I disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling, but the infamous Heller case produced a 5:4 split ruling with four dissenting justices. Meaning that the issue was far from clear cut
I side with those dissenting justices.

 

[Neomalthusian]

1) It's the same as taxes, which are not "involuntary servitude."

It's not the same as taxes. Taxes are applied broadly and more or less evenly. In comparing jury duty to taxes, jury duty is more comparable to a direct tax. Direct taxes are illegal.

2) You already admitted you didn't care when your employer paid you, and you're only complaining now because you're self-employed. Something doesn't become "involuntary servitude" just because they compensate you to your satisfaction.

Being required to labor against one's will in order to benefit another, under some form of coercion, is experienced as involuntary servitude whether or not any courts anywhere will agree that it is.

Involuntary servitude is actually not dependent on compensation or its amount. It could theoretically still be involuntary servitude regardless of compensation or its amount. It's just that when the compensation amount is very low, there is no incentive to use the resource responsibly or efficiently. If the compensation were very high, there would be enough volunteers that it would not need to be involuntary. But when the amount is extremely low, it is obviously going to trigger a much greater sense of injustice when one is required to be present and perform work against their will.

In other words, your real complaint is that they aren't paying you enough. You should drop the self-righteous nonsense, as your actual motivations are evident.

I'm completely open about my motivations.

What's your motivation to defend and protect the practice of paying jurors at a level far below what is even legal in regular employment? You seem to want jurors to be paid virtually nothing, as they currently are. What's your motivation behind that position?

 

[Helix]

Occasionally, I've wondered if I should have studied law instead of what I'm currently doing. I think that i could have been a decent lawyer. However, whenever I get called for jury duty, the desire to get the **** out of that courtroom hits me an hour or two in. There's just something about the vibe that makes my skin crawl. Luckily, I haven't been chosen as a juror yet.

 

[Visbek]

It's not the same as taxes. Taxes are applied broadly and more or less evenly. In comparing jury duty to taxes, jury duty is more comparable to a direct tax. Direct taxes are illegal.

And yet, no court in the US has adopted your logic. I wonder why?

No, it's the same thing. Every adult can be called up for jury duty. It's assigned randomly.

By the way, direct taxes are definitely legal in the US. In fact, the majority of taxes Americans pay -- income, property, sales etc -- are direct taxes.

Direct Tax: Definition, History, and Examples

A direct tax is a tax paid directly by an individual or organization to the entity that levied the tax, such as the U.S. government.

www.investopedia.com

Being required to labor against one's will in order to benefit another, under some form of coercion, is experienced as involuntary servitude whether or not any courts anywhere will agree that it is.

...except that we do not classify civic duties as "labor" in any ordinary sense. It's the same reason why sane people don't classify taxes as "theft."

Involuntary servitude is actually not dependent on compensation or its amount.

Really? Then why are you demanding more compensation? Why were you triggered by a lack of compensation now that you're self-employed? If you truly believe that jury duty is unethical, then you should be arguing against it, not for higher cmpensation.

But when the amount is extremely low, it is obviously going to trigger a much greater sense of injustice when one is required to be present and perform work against their will.

lol... "I'll put up with being enslaved for a week, as long as I'm paid well for it!" What utter nonsense.

What's your motivation to defend and protect the practice of paying jurors at a level far below what is even legal in regular employment?

I'm not defending the practice. If you want jurors to get paid more, then go talk to your state legislators. But I highly recommend you drop the "omg we're slaves!!!" nonsense, because that is so irrationally contradictory that it's DOA.

Meanwhile, my motivation is a recognition that performing jury duty provides a common good. That's it. Unlike you, I don't get any direct personal benefit from this position.

You seem to want jurors to be paid virtually nothing, as they currently are.

lol... Re-read my post. I already agreed that the compensation is too low. In some states, it's $5 per day. Maybe you should consider yourself lucky.

I'm certainly not saying the system is perfect. E.g. we really should get rid of grand juries, they're a waste of everyone's time. But again, your approach here -- "jury duty is slavery, but we'll put up with it if you pay us more!" is just self-serving, falsely self-righteous nonsense.

 

[Rich2018]

Occasionally, I've wondered if I should have studied law instead of what I'm currently doing. I think that i could have been a decent lawyer. However, whenever I get called for jury duty, the desire to get the **** out of that courtroom hits me an hour or two in. There's just something about the vibe that makes my skin crawl. Luckily, I haven't been chosen as a juror yet.

And that almost universal reaction from jurors is a big reason why jury trials should be scrapped.

 

[Helix]

And that almost universal reaction from jurors is a big reason why jury trials should be scrapped.

Is there a better option?

 

[Nickyjo]

Even if it isn't 'that great,' it's apparently sufficient that people will show up and voluntarily enlist, given we haven't conscripted people into the military for over 50 years. If jury service were voluntary, obviously I wouldn't have started this thread, regardless of whether I personally felt the compensation was sufficient or not.

You could avoid this obligation of citizenship by say, not registering to vote.