This book can be read for free (and ad-free) in its entirety on this website.
It is also available for purchase on Amazon.com in paperback/Kindle formats for $4.25/$0.99 USD.
It is also available for purchase on Amazon.com in paperback/Kindle formats for $4.25/$0.99 USD.
Twelve Warm Bodies: One Man's Written Protest Against
America's Outdated Jury Duty System
Larry Zafran
Many readers may be surprised to see that I have chosen to begin this written protest begin with the following encouraging statement:
If you are called for jury duty, and are reasonably* able to serve (and if the court staff is understanding and helpful in rescheduling your service date as needed), it is important that you support your fellow American citizens by serving to the best of your ability and with complete honesty, even if serving is inconvenient and/or unpleasant. *I elaborate on my use of the word “reasonably” in the next section of this book.
Having made that statement, the premise of my protest is as follows: Our jury duty system, much like American society in general, has degraded to the point where it is essentially defunct. This completely free (and ad-free) online e-book addresses this and many other topics related to America's system of jury duty. The book is approximately 30,000 words (about the length of an average novella). For my teenage readers (who will be eligible to serve on a jury in at most five years) the book is equivalent to about 1300 maximum-length “tweets.” The book is divided into short topics which will hopefully be easy for people to read.
America's jury duty system is horribly outdated, but politicians are not keen to admit such and advocate change. Our system of jury duty (i.e., summoning random citizens and ordering them to appear in court) is essentially the same as it has always been, yet over the course of just the last 50 years, American society and the average American citizen have completely changed. By any reasonable standard, we have become a completely new country. American citizens, collectively, have devolved into a less advanced species.
Back in “The Day,” school was still “School,” and not the watered-down political farce that it has been since the 1970s if not earlier. The news media provided “News,” and was not a form of entertainment targeted at a simple-minded population rife with the symptoms of ADHD. The technology that helped turn us into mindless zombies had not yet been invented. People conversed in full, meaningful sentences with their friends, neighbors, and local merchants, and knew them all by name. People composed and mailed letters comprised of complete sentences and paragraphs to distant family members and friends. People did their best to take care of themselves physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually, and had a sense of personal responsibility. People were able to read and write (in the traditional sense), do basic arithmetic computations (by hand no less), listen attentively, assimilate and memorize new information, use logistical deduction, be still and maintain focus on a task for an extended period of time, articulate with clear speech, assert themselves effectively when appropriate, demonstrate courtesy and proper etiquette, and most importantly, think. Most of these characteristics are now predominantly (but certainly not exclusively) prevalent in people who are at least 45 years old as of the time of this writing (i.e., born in or before 1970).
One reason why I wrote this book is to assert my opinion that the majority of people summoned for jury duty are simply not qualified to serve on a jury—at least not by any standard that could be considered reasonable. Being the proverbial “warm body” (albeit one who is a non-felon American citizen who is at least 18 years old) is not a sufficient qualification. At minimum, a juror needs to be able to completely understand everything that transpires during a case, and be intellectually capable of doing more than just rudimentary keyword matching. A juror also needs to be able to clearly and effectively articulate his/her opinions to his/her fellow jurors, ask questions of the judge if necessary, and understand the judge's answers.
Another reason why I wrote this book is to address the fact that the response to juror summonses is extremely low. According to my informal research, the national estimate for response to juror summonses is about 20%. In struggling communities, this figure may be as low as 7%. Admittedly, some summonses are sent to people who have moved or are deceased, but this only demonstrates the government’s incompetence and lack of access to accurate and updated records. The main concern for this book, though, is that many people simply toss their summonses in the garbage while most likely thinking something to the effect of, “I never got it. I never signed for it. It wasn't even sent with delivery confirmation. They can't prove anything. Let's see them waste their limited budget and law-enforcement resources to try to come after me. What are they going to do? Throw me in jail?! I'd like to see them try!”
This is a problem that needs to be explored and addressed. Even though the overwhelming majority of court cases (97% according to my informal research) are not handled by a jury, we cannot have a system in which violent criminals are set free simply because they were legally entitled to a trial by a jury of their so-called “peers,” but no such people were available. We also cannot have a system in which people who have been falsely accused of wrongdoing are left with no other option than to plead their case to a single government employee (e.g., a judge) as opposed to a vetted group of “regular” people just like them. I acknowledge that in some situations, accused parties have the right to request that their case be tried by a judge as opposed to a jury, and may choose this option just as I would do.
A personal reason why I wrote this book is that it quite literally makes me sick to my stomach to hear someone mention the phrase “jury duty” at a social gathering, at which point almost everyone in the room chimes in with “horror stories” about their bad experiences with serving (or secondhand stories from others that they have heard or read about). Some people are simply uncomfortable with the thought of being responsible for making a monumental decision regarding whether to sentence a potentially innocent person to a long and harsh prison term (if not death), or making a decision about a very large sum of money to be awarded in a civil case.
People also express a great deal of anxiety if not outright fear as to the prospect of serving and/or receiving a summons to serve. Often, this stems from a concern about losing their job or being “punished” by their employer, or falling behind on work which will be difficult and/or time-consuming to make up. In the case of those who are self-employed or unemployed but actively searching for work, it may stem from a concern about lost wages and/or lost opportunities. Most importantly, if an employed person is struggling financially, and will not be paid his/her salary while serving on jury duty, s/he may be left with no practical choice but to “dodge” jury duty, and hope that s/he is not caught and/or punished. In modern-day America, this is not necessarily a matter of losing out on money to buy luxuries—it may be a matter of not being able to pay one's rent.
Many prospective jurors are concerned about logistical issues regarding home and family matters such as taking care of a child and/or relative who needs special care. There may also be more mundane concerns such as the logistics and expense of traveling to and from the courthouse. For a poor person, this is no minor matter. It doesn't help that the juror will receive a small check from the government several weeks later. People also express anxiety over whether they will essentially be “trapped” in service for many days and/or “forced” onto a lengthy and/or high-profile case by a “mean” and unsympathetic judge despite their request to be excused for reasons of hardship and/or other special concerns.
It should be noted that a significant and increasing percentage of Americans have a physical and/or mental/emotional disability (common examples being depression, social anxiety, and AD(H)D) for which a doctor's note would easily excuse them from serving, but for whatever reason, they are unable to obtain such a note, perhaps due to financial and/or logistical issues. Some people may simply be too intimated by the prospect of all that jury duty entails. In particular, not everyone has the confidence needed to be able to address a courtroom full of strangers during juror questioning (in the manner of an interview, albeit an informal one) while a court stenographer takes down their every word in real-time for a permanent written record. This may especially be true for a younger person who has had effectively no schooling, and whose primary socialization comes in the form of typing abbreviations, keywords, and emoticons in online chat rooms and on his/her smartphone.
At some point in any group conversation about jury duty, people begin sharing excuses and/or tactics they have used (or have heard or read were successfully used) to get out of serving on a given case and/or get out of showing up for service in the first place. The discussion then turns to the topic of what the government can and/or will do if someone ignores their summons, and/or shows up to court and misrepresents themself in an effort to not be picked as a juror for a given case. And in any discussion about jury duty, there is always a small percentage of people who share positive experiences of times they have served, and use adjectives such as “interesting,” “educational,” and “enlightening.” These people usually also point out that they have a job and/or life circumstances that facilitate being able to serve without any hardship or consequences. They are also typically intelligent, educated, sociable, and community-minded.
The mere mention of the phrase “jury duty” should not turn into such a “big deal,” and should not lead to such predictable dialog accompanied by such anxiety and negative emotions. The fact that it does means that something is wrong, and that the system is in need of repair and modernization. Jury duty was, is, and hopefully always will be an extremely important part of America's system of justice. Having said that, our current system has become horribly if not dangerously outdated, and there is a great deal of change that needs to take place.
My name is Larry Zafran, and this is my written protest against America's outdated jury duty system. Hopefully, if nothing else, it will serve as a model of how someone can express his/her viewpoints on a matter in a non-violent, non-destructive, and non-disruptive manner. The power to change laws, policies, and the collective consciousness of The People is best accomplished through the written or spoken word, and as a last resort, through non-violent, non-destructive, and non-disruptive demonstrations and/or acts of civil (as in “civilized”) disobedience and resistance.
Please help spread the word about this book if you agree with most or all of the points made.
Go to First Topic
Go to Table of Contents
If you are called for jury duty, and are reasonably* able to serve (and if the court staff is understanding and helpful in rescheduling your service date as needed), it is important that you support your fellow American citizens by serving to the best of your ability and with complete honesty, even if serving is inconvenient and/or unpleasant. *I elaborate on my use of the word “reasonably” in the next section of this book.
Having made that statement, the premise of my protest is as follows: Our jury duty system, much like American society in general, has degraded to the point where it is essentially defunct. This completely free (and ad-free) online e-book addresses this and many other topics related to America's system of jury duty. The book is approximately 30,000 words (about the length of an average novella). For my teenage readers (who will be eligible to serve on a jury in at most five years) the book is equivalent to about 1300 maximum-length “tweets.” The book is divided into short topics which will hopefully be easy for people to read.
America's jury duty system is horribly outdated, but politicians are not keen to admit such and advocate change. Our system of jury duty (i.e., summoning random citizens and ordering them to appear in court) is essentially the same as it has always been, yet over the course of just the last 50 years, American society and the average American citizen have completely changed. By any reasonable standard, we have become a completely new country. American citizens, collectively, have devolved into a less advanced species.
Back in “The Day,” school was still “School,” and not the watered-down political farce that it has been since the 1970s if not earlier. The news media provided “News,” and was not a form of entertainment targeted at a simple-minded population rife with the symptoms of ADHD. The technology that helped turn us into mindless zombies had not yet been invented. People conversed in full, meaningful sentences with their friends, neighbors, and local merchants, and knew them all by name. People composed and mailed letters comprised of complete sentences and paragraphs to distant family members and friends. People did their best to take care of themselves physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually, and had a sense of personal responsibility. People were able to read and write (in the traditional sense), do basic arithmetic computations (by hand no less), listen attentively, assimilate and memorize new information, use logistical deduction, be still and maintain focus on a task for an extended period of time, articulate with clear speech, assert themselves effectively when appropriate, demonstrate courtesy and proper etiquette, and most importantly, think. Most of these characteristics are now predominantly (but certainly not exclusively) prevalent in people who are at least 45 years old as of the time of this writing (i.e., born in or before 1970).
One reason why I wrote this book is to assert my opinion that the majority of people summoned for jury duty are simply not qualified to serve on a jury—at least not by any standard that could be considered reasonable. Being the proverbial “warm body” (albeit one who is a non-felon American citizen who is at least 18 years old) is not a sufficient qualification. At minimum, a juror needs to be able to completely understand everything that transpires during a case, and be intellectually capable of doing more than just rudimentary keyword matching. A juror also needs to be able to clearly and effectively articulate his/her opinions to his/her fellow jurors, ask questions of the judge if necessary, and understand the judge's answers.
Another reason why I wrote this book is to address the fact that the response to juror summonses is extremely low. According to my informal research, the national estimate for response to juror summonses is about 20%. In struggling communities, this figure may be as low as 7%. Admittedly, some summonses are sent to people who have moved or are deceased, but this only demonstrates the government’s incompetence and lack of access to accurate and updated records. The main concern for this book, though, is that many people simply toss their summonses in the garbage while most likely thinking something to the effect of, “I never got it. I never signed for it. It wasn't even sent with delivery confirmation. They can't prove anything. Let's see them waste their limited budget and law-enforcement resources to try to come after me. What are they going to do? Throw me in jail?! I'd like to see them try!”
This is a problem that needs to be explored and addressed. Even though the overwhelming majority of court cases (97% according to my informal research) are not handled by a jury, we cannot have a system in which violent criminals are set free simply because they were legally entitled to a trial by a jury of their so-called “peers,” but no such people were available. We also cannot have a system in which people who have been falsely accused of wrongdoing are left with no other option than to plead their case to a single government employee (e.g., a judge) as opposed to a vetted group of “regular” people just like them. I acknowledge that in some situations, accused parties have the right to request that their case be tried by a judge as opposed to a jury, and may choose this option just as I would do.
A personal reason why I wrote this book is that it quite literally makes me sick to my stomach to hear someone mention the phrase “jury duty” at a social gathering, at which point almost everyone in the room chimes in with “horror stories” about their bad experiences with serving (or secondhand stories from others that they have heard or read about). Some people are simply uncomfortable with the thought of being responsible for making a monumental decision regarding whether to sentence a potentially innocent person to a long and harsh prison term (if not death), or making a decision about a very large sum of money to be awarded in a civil case.
People also express a great deal of anxiety if not outright fear as to the prospect of serving and/or receiving a summons to serve. Often, this stems from a concern about losing their job or being “punished” by their employer, or falling behind on work which will be difficult and/or time-consuming to make up. In the case of those who are self-employed or unemployed but actively searching for work, it may stem from a concern about lost wages and/or lost opportunities. Most importantly, if an employed person is struggling financially, and will not be paid his/her salary while serving on jury duty, s/he may be left with no practical choice but to “dodge” jury duty, and hope that s/he is not caught and/or punished. In modern-day America, this is not necessarily a matter of losing out on money to buy luxuries—it may be a matter of not being able to pay one's rent.
Many prospective jurors are concerned about logistical issues regarding home and family matters such as taking care of a child and/or relative who needs special care. There may also be more mundane concerns such as the logistics and expense of traveling to and from the courthouse. For a poor person, this is no minor matter. It doesn't help that the juror will receive a small check from the government several weeks later. People also express anxiety over whether they will essentially be “trapped” in service for many days and/or “forced” onto a lengthy and/or high-profile case by a “mean” and unsympathetic judge despite their request to be excused for reasons of hardship and/or other special concerns.
It should be noted that a significant and increasing percentage of Americans have a physical and/or mental/emotional disability (common examples being depression, social anxiety, and AD(H)D) for which a doctor's note would easily excuse them from serving, but for whatever reason, they are unable to obtain such a note, perhaps due to financial and/or logistical issues. Some people may simply be too intimated by the prospect of all that jury duty entails. In particular, not everyone has the confidence needed to be able to address a courtroom full of strangers during juror questioning (in the manner of an interview, albeit an informal one) while a court stenographer takes down their every word in real-time for a permanent written record. This may especially be true for a younger person who has had effectively no schooling, and whose primary socialization comes in the form of typing abbreviations, keywords, and emoticons in online chat rooms and on his/her smartphone.
At some point in any group conversation about jury duty, people begin sharing excuses and/or tactics they have used (or have heard or read were successfully used) to get out of serving on a given case and/or get out of showing up for service in the first place. The discussion then turns to the topic of what the government can and/or will do if someone ignores their summons, and/or shows up to court and misrepresents themself in an effort to not be picked as a juror for a given case. And in any discussion about jury duty, there is always a small percentage of people who share positive experiences of times they have served, and use adjectives such as “interesting,” “educational,” and “enlightening.” These people usually also point out that they have a job and/or life circumstances that facilitate being able to serve without any hardship or consequences. They are also typically intelligent, educated, sociable, and community-minded.
The mere mention of the phrase “jury duty” should not turn into such a “big deal,” and should not lead to such predictable dialog accompanied by such anxiety and negative emotions. The fact that it does means that something is wrong, and that the system is in need of repair and modernization. Jury duty was, is, and hopefully always will be an extremely important part of America's system of justice. Having said that, our current system has become horribly if not dangerously outdated, and there is a great deal of change that needs to take place.
My name is Larry Zafran, and this is my written protest against America's outdated jury duty system. Hopefully, if nothing else, it will serve as a model of how someone can express his/her viewpoints on a matter in a non-violent, non-destructive, and non-disruptive manner. The power to change laws, policies, and the collective consciousness of The People is best accomplished through the written or spoken word, and as a last resort, through non-violent, non-destructive, and non-disruptive demonstrations and/or acts of civil (as in “civilized”) disobedience and resistance.
Please help spread the word about this book if you agree with most or all of the points made.
Go to First Topic
Go to Table of Contents