Jury Duty: Service or Servitude??

[Cameron]

I had a conversation with a friend who has been called for jury duty. She is not happy about it and is trying to come up with any excuse she can to get out of it. Her reason was that she does not want to be involved with making such decisions that effect the lives of strangers. I do not understand this attitude. My comment to her (to which she has not responded), was "..how would you feel, if it were you on trial and no one wanted to serve on your jury?..." I've always felt it my civic duty and I've never tried to get out of it.

I open this up to ask how you feel about serving on a jury, and why?

I have always wanted to serve on a jury. Haven't actually made it on one yet.

 

[Woodman909]

There was no hard evidence. The other jurors were saying things like this guy is a scum bag and probably did it, lets find him guilty and be home for dinner. He was a scum bag and probably did do it but I always thought you needed a thing called evidence so I hung the jury. In the end though a couple of people finally agreed with me.

Well done.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

I open this up to ask how you feel about serving on a jury, and why?

I wouldn't be thrilled about the loss of wages. I'm on a tight budget and I've got a wife and 2 kids to feed.

Other than that, juries are an essential building block of our society and I'd be honored to participate.

 

[Fisher]

Thank you for the comment. Question, do you feel Jury Duty in general is a privilege, or just painful?

Seldom a privilege and often a pain apparently. It is one of those responsibilities I suppose--the price one pays for registering to vote.

 

[radcen]

I had a conversation with a friend who has been called for jury duty. She is not happy about it and is trying to come up with any excuse she can to get out of it. Her reason was that she does not want to be involved with making such decisions that effect the lives of strangers. I do not understand this attitude. My comment to her (to which she has not responded), was "..how would you feel, if it were you on trial and no one wanted to serve on your jury?..." I've always felt it my civic duty and I've never tried to get out of it.

I open this up to ask how you feel about serving on a jury, and why?

In my humble opinion, your friend is part of the problem. I believe that it is exactly people like her that would take it seriously and would make thoughtful deliberations. Instead, she would rather leave somebody else's fate to people who are potentially less concerned and more easily led.

I've been self-employed virtually my whole life. I've always looked at jury duty as a privilege. Hell, I'd volunteer if I could. I've been called to "possibly serve" twice. Have never made it onto a jury. My loss.

It would depend on the nature of one's business, but yeah. In my business, as long as I wasn't sequestered, and as long as I could still make occasional appointments and meetings (which aren't all that often), then I could do it. Even if it were a couple months.

If I were sequestered, and if it were more than a few days, it could be potentially financially devastating for me.

I have no interest in serving, I think our current system is fatally flawed and so long as it is, I don't want to take part in it. It's no longer about coming to the truth regarding a case, it's about who has the fastest talking shyster lawyer that can convince a jury of 12 people who weren't smart enough to get out of it that their side is the most emotionally enticing.

No thanks.

Your attitude is part of the problem, as well.

Better hope you never get caught up in strange circumstances and get falsely accused of a crime. Then again, maybe it would be poetic justice for you to be judged by less-than-qualified people who are easily duped by a bunch of shyster lawyers.

The Peoples Republic of California has taken it a step forward, they are going to allow non-citizens to judge citizens.

California Considering Non-Citizen Jury Duty

A non-citizen is not my peer.

I'd do everything I could to try and avoid it if I got called. My company doesn't pay if I have jury duty, and the court doesn't pay nearly what my job does. I'm not willing to lose money to do my 'civic duty'.

And I think that's one of the biggest problems with the way we pick jurors in this country. The law doesn't require your company to pay your salary when you're on jury duty, and the court doesn't even pay minimum wage, so no one wants to do it, unless they're retired, unemployed, or they work for one of the few companies that does offer paid time off for jury duty.

The financial aspect shouldn't be a factor, but it is.

That's one of the reasons when I'm stuck on a jury, being compensated two cents to the dollar I would be making, I look around who is responsible for me being here ?

Might be the criminal, or it might be the prosecutor (if the defendant is falsely accused).

Jury duty isn't a privilege, but a necessary task. I've been called for jury duty 4 times, but got out 3 times because I was moving out of the area (coincidence), and I went in when I was next called.

That's a fair statement.

i don't like the idea. i have a conscience and a lot of empathy, so that potentially translates to guilt and questioning whether or not i did the right thing. however, i don't try to get out of it anymore, because empathetic jurors are a good thing.

i recently almost got picked; made it to jury selection, and when i learned exactly what the individual was being tried for, i realized i couldn't be on the jury. the defense was asking the question, "if the defendant does not testify, could you still be objective?" in this case, the answer was absolutely no. an innocent person falsely accused of this particular crime would absolutely testify, and would probably stand up and testify right there during the jury selection and then be tossed out for contempt of court. the day dragged on and on, and then we finally broke for lunch. the defendant made a deal during lunch, and we went home after sitting there for an hour and a half while the deal was made.

it was a lousy day. they talked to us like we were elementary school kids, and gave the same information over and over to each juror when just saying it once would have sufficed. a procedure that should have taken two hours took all day. that being said, it's absolutely a civic duty, and if called, i'll go again. if picked, i'll reluctantly serve. but if they ask me a question about my objectivity , i will answer honestly whether it disqualifies me or not.

I disagree that a falsely accused person would absolutely testify. In an ideal world that would be true, but courtrooms are far from perfect. It's a game of strategy where the goal of our adversarial system is NOT to find the truth, but to simply win.

If I were falsely accused my decision on whether or not to testify would depend on many factors. I probably wouldn't decide until right before I had to.

If I were on a jury I would not look unfavorably on a defendant simply because they chose to not testify.

 

[molten_dragon]

The financial aspect shouldn't be a factor, but it is.

Money is more important than some nebulous sense of duty to people. Especially people for whom the lack of that money might have some fairly serious consequences. That's always going to be the case. There's no real way around it other than to pay the jurors better.

 

[radcen]

Money is more important than some nebulous sense of duty to people. Especially people for whom the lack of that money might have some fairly serious consequences. That's always going to be the case. There's no real way around it other than to pay the jurors better.

If it's nebulous, why even bother with it at all?

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

In my humble opinion, your friend is part of the problem. I believe that it is exactly people like her that would take it seriously and would make thoughtful deliberations. Instead, she would rather leave somebody else's fate to people who are potentially less concerned and more easily led.



It would depend on the nature of one's business, but yeah. In my business, as long as I wasn't sequestered, and as long as I could still make occasional appointments and meetings (which aren't all that often), then I could do it. Even if it were a couple months.

If I were sequestered, and if it were more than a few days, it could be potentially financially devastating for me.



Your attitude is part of the problem, as well.

Better hope you never get caught up in strange circumstances and get falsely accused of a crime. Then again, maybe it would be poetic justice for you to be judged by less-than-qualified people who are easily duped by a bunch of shyster lawyers.



A non-citizen is not my peer.



The financial aspect shouldn't be a factor, but it is.



Might be the criminal, or it might be the prosecutor (if the defendant is falsely accused).



That's a fair statement.



I disagree that a falsely accused person would absolutely testify. In an ideal world that would be true, but courtrooms are far from perfect. It's a game of strategy where the goal of our adversarial system is NOT to find the truth, but to simply win.

If I were falsely accused my decision on whether or not to testify would depend on many factors. I probably wouldn't decide until right before I had to.

If I were on a jury I would not look unfavorably on a defendant simply because they chose to not testify.

I'm only quoting this because I couldn't like it a second time.

 

[bubbabgone]

Interesting question woodman ... you're getting responses from across the spectrum.

I don't like to call something a responsibility but if it is it's because not having a good representation on a jury is undesirable.
That could come pretty close to making it a responsibility ... even though I saw some good reasons why folks don't want to participate.

What worries me (and I'm going to digress here but stay with me) is exemplified by an hour long interview with Bashar Assad I just saw.
He looked honest & reasonable even though we know he's anything but.
The problem arises because I suspect there are any number of people who might think he really is and they might end up on my jury.
And that kind of thing could be further exemplified by, say, an unnamed President of the USA.

I don't think I ever served but I think I was called and sat there until they told me it wasn't going to happen.
To be honest, I'd like to have served and still would.

 

[Captain Adverse]

i don't like the idea. i have a conscience and a lot of empathy, so that potentially translates to guilt and questioning whether or not i did the right thing. however, i don't try to get out of it anymore, because empathetic jurors are a good thing.

i recently almost got picked; made it to jury selection, and when i learned exactly what the individual was being tried for, i realized i couldn't be on the jury. the defense was asking the question, "if the defendant does not testify, could you still be objective?" in this case, the answer was absolutely no. an innocent person falsely accused of this particular crime would absolutely testify, and would probably stand up and testify right there during the jury selection and then be tossed out for contempt of court. the day dragged on and on, and then we finally broke for lunch. the defendant made a deal during lunch, and we went home after sitting there for an hour and a half while the deal was made.

Please don't take this as an attack on your position. I understand it, but you do bring up an issue I'd like to address generally.

I decided to respond because this an issue that I find is part of the problem in our criminal justice system. One of the foundational precepts of our justice system is that in a criminal case the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Most of us are aware of this but we don't seem to really understand what this means, and it is often reflected in just such a position as the member stated in his post above.

People often think that if a person is brought to trial then there must be some valid reason and therefore the defendant is responsible for showing that the reason is untrue. This is reflected in the way we act when we see someone in the news facing charges for some alleged criminal act. We automatically assume they are guilty and treat them as if they were, as recently exemplified by the public reactions to the Zimmerman case.

However, the burden of proof is on the State to prove the case against the defendant. That is because from arrest until the final jury determination, the defendant is supposed to be considered INNOCENT until proven otherwise. The defendant should not have to say a single word in his own defense. The jury should already accept that he is innocent and instead be looking at the State's case from the position that each must be convinced of guilt, not convinced of innocence.

If one is starting from the belief the defendant is innocent, why should one care if the defendant does not testify? There are many good reasons an innocent person might not testify. There are many dangers and few real advantages because the defendant is not going to be allowed to simply get up and say he did not do it. He may have a past that would prejudice the jury if he took the stand. He may be a bad witness in his own defense due to educational, cultural, or social problems. The prosecutor might try to confuse or trip him up by repeated questions rephrased to do just that.

So I would ask anyone who thinks this way to reconsider, and try to think in terms of how best to eliminate such preconceived notions in order to perform valid jury service.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

I have always wanted to serve on a jury. Haven't actually made it on one yet.

Hope you're not on mine! :lol:

 

[Cameron]

Hope you're not on mine! :lol:

I'm very open-minded. You needn't fear me if you have nothing to fear.

 

[Helix]

I disagree that a falsely accused person would absolutely testify. In an ideal world that would be true, but courtrooms are far from perfect. It's a game of strategy where the goal of our adversarial system is NOT to find the truth, but to simply win.

If I were falsely accused my decision on whether or not to testify would depend on many factors. I probably wouldn't decide until right before I had to.

If I were on a jury I would not look unfavorably on a defendant simply because they chose to not testify.

if you were falsely accused of what this person was charged with, you would testify. and if you were on a jury, you could not overlook a refusal to testify. it was that awful.

 

[radcen]

Please don't take this as an attack on your position. I understand it, but you do bring up an issue I'd like to address generally.

I decided to respond because this an issue that I find is part of the problem in our criminal justice system. One of the foundational precepts of our justice system is that in a criminal case the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Most of us are aware of this but we don't seem to really understand what this means, and it is often reflected in just such a position as the member stated in his post above.

People often think that if a person is brought to trial then there must be some valid reason and therefore the defendant is responsible for showing that the reason is untrue. This is reflected in the way we act when we see someone in the news facing charges for some alleged criminal act. We automatically assume they are guilty and treat them as if they were, as recently exemplified by the public reactions to the Zimmerman case.

However, the burden of proof is on the State to prove the case against the defendant. That is because from arrest until the final jury determination, the defendant is supposed to be considered INNOCENT until proven otherwise. The defendant should not have to say a single word in his own defense. The jury should already accept that he is innocent and instead be looking at the State's case from the position that each must be convinced of guilt, not convinced of innocence.

If one is starting from the belief the defendant is innocent, why should one care if the defendant does not testify? There are many good reasons an innocent person might not testify. There are many dangers and few real advantages because the defendant is not going to be allowed to simply get up and say he did not do it. He may have a past that would prejudice the jury if he took the stand. He may be a bad witness in his own defense due to educational, cultural, or social problems. The prosecutor might try to confuse or trip him up by repeated questions rephrased to do just that.

So I would ask anyone who thinks this way to reconsider, and try to think in terms of how best to eliminate such preconceived notions in order to perform valid jury service.

If I could like this a thousand times, I would.

Sometimes the reason a person won't testify is simply because they don't present well, and would actually do them self more harm if they did.

if you were falsely accused of what this person was charged with, you would testify. and if you were on a jury, you could not overlook a refusal to testify. it was that awful.

Even though it was obvious you were referencing a specific case, I took your meaning to be more of a blanket statement.

 

[Helix]

Even though it was obvious you were referencing a specific case, I took your meaning to be more of a blanket statement.

understood. this was a specific circumstance.

 

[radcen]

understood. this was a specific circumstance.

As much as I cheer and agree with Captain Adverse's post, I also know that there will be some cases where even the most impartial person would have a struggle to maintain their neutrality.

 

[joko104]

Last time I was up for jury selection, I made it into the courtroom. One man answered all the questions inappropriately.

"Do you think you could be fair in deciding guilt or innocence in this case?" (He'd given a summary of it.)

"No, your honor."

"Why is that, Mr. Whatever?"

"Because I hate cops and could never believe they were right in arresting someone."

"You would automatically believe a law enforcement officer was committing perjury on the witness stand?"

"Yes, your honor."

It went back and forth like that a few minutes, and finally the judge said something like, "Mr. Whatever, I think you've made your intention to purposefully avoid jury duty crystal clear. And I'm going to honor your request. You are dismissed from jury duty. Now, please take a seat at the back of the courtroom where you will remain until the conclusion of this trial."

I swear at least a dozen of us wanted to applaud. What.A.Jerk.

IF the person actually did hate cops then he did the right thing in being truthful about it. Personally, while I would not automatically assume a police officer was lying, I also would not vote to convict solely upon police testimony either. There would have to be supporting evidence.

During jury questioning, I suspect too many people give the correct answer, rather than the truthful answer.

I would never be put on a jury for many reasons. One of those being that to the question of whether I would follow the instructions of the judge, my truthful answer is that I would do what I believe is just, that I believe that is the purpose of a jury, and one of those purposes is as a buffer against wrongful usage of power by the government - which the judge is part of - and against bad laws or unjust application of the law.

Would that be me trying to get out of jury duty? Or should I give the correct answer, and then do the opposite if it be came relevant during deliberations?

 

[joko104]

For a long jury trial this can cause severe hardship on a juror. In major cases, a problem is that the trials are so dragged out.

 

[Leviculus]

Jury duty should be taken seriously ... I think the golden rule applies here if you were up there for murder you wouldn't want somebody making poor decisions because they feel as though they are being forced to do this it should be a honor to serve our country in any way

 

[MaggieD]

Would that be me trying to get out of jury duty? Or should I give the correct answer, and then do the opposite if it be came relevant during deliberations?

"Oh, and by the way, Your Honor, I believe in jury nullification." :rofl

You're the guy who ought to be on juries. I'd want you on mine.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

"Oh, and by the way, Your Honor, I believe in jury nullification." :rofl

You're the guy who ought to be on juries. I'd want you on mine.

Ah, jury nullification, the deepest darkest secret of the criminal justice system.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/28/n...cation-case-against-julian-heicklen.html?_r=0

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/case-dismissed-against-jury-nullification-advocate/

 

[MaggieD]

Ah, jury nullification, the deepest darkest secret of the criminal justice system.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/28/n...cation-case-against-julian-heicklen.html?_r=0

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/case-dismissed-against-jury-nullification-advocate/

That first case is likely to go all the way to SCOTUS -- IF SCOTUS will hear it. About damned time.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

That first case is likely to go all the way to SCOTUS -- IF SCOTUS will hear it. About damned time.

No, unfortunately. First link was about the charges, second was about the dismissal of same. The judge decided that the man in question couldn't be prosecuted since he wasn't telling potential jurors how to decide a specific case.

 

[Fisher]

That first case is likely to go all the way to SCOTUS -- IF SCOTUS will hear it. About damned time.

The links are to the same case. The charge was dismissed by the Court in the second link.

Whta I expect to happen is to see a new law passed prohibiting distribution of material within X feet of a courthouse or something.

 

[MaggieD]

No, unfortunately. First link was about the charges, second was about the dismissal of same. The judge decided that the man in question couldn't be prosecuted since he wasn't telling potential jurors how to decide a specific case.

Oh, interesting! (I obviously didn't click on the second link.) I'll bet one of the reasons it WAS dismissed was the likelihood that the cure would be worse than the disease. Ha!