Should jury duty be completely and totally optional? Is it effectively already so? Should a “jury duty dodger” lose his/her rights to a trial by jury if s/he is ever accused of a crime? Should participation in a particular case be completely and totally optional? Is it effectively already so?
One of the things that I quickly learned while working as a school teacher is that “forcing” people to do something is usually ineffective. Conversely, motivating people to do something and/or demonstrating to them that something is the right thing to do is usually highly effective. I see absolutely no point in “forcing” a person to show up for jury duty only to have that person show up simply because s/he was afraid of receiving the penalty for not doing so. Of course there is the hope that once the person is at the courthouse, s/he will see that jury service is “not so bad,” and s/he will have a change of heart about the matter. I have seen firsthand that it is easy to fall under a “spell” in the context of a formal courthouse setting, especially after receiving a motivating “pep talk” by a friendly and reasonable-sounding clerk and/or judge. Having said that, if the person's heart and mind are already made up, then all we are dealing with is a “moot point” exercise in transporting living human flesh (i.e., the proverbial “warm body”) from Point A to Point B and back again, and paying the individual a token stipend for such. The person will say and do whatever s/he feels will result in his/her dismissal as rapidly as possible. All that has transpired is a waste of taxpayer money, and a delay in proceeding with any trials for which the individual is questioned. It is time for America to change the entire nature of a jury duty “summons” such that people feel encouraged and motivated to attend, as opposed being forced to attend effectively under duress.
Many people feel that a “jury duty dodger” (who has no reasonable excuse for being such) should lose his/her rights to a trial by jury if s/he is ever accused of a crime. I could literally completely fill two separate books on this matter—one in favor of this suggestion and one opposed to it. The matter is simply something for concerned citizens to think about.
There is then the matter of whether a person should be forced to lie if s/he doesn't want to serve on a particular case. A person may not want to serve due to the expected length of the case, due to fear of the ramifications of a particular verdict, or due to the content of the case which may be upsetting or that may conflict with religious restrictions. Of course, the juror may simply not “give a damn” about the case in question, or may find the subject matter too uninteresting or trivial to be bothered with. It is my understanding that judges typically try to be reasonable and understanding, but still sit in judgment of whether or not a given excuse is valid and reasonable.
It is a well known fact that a prospective juror who displays any type of bias (e.g., “I completely do/don't trust cops”) will not be picked for a case. This is also true for anyone whose mind has obviously been made up on a given case, or who is strongly leaning in a given direction. It is also well known that anyone who displays any type of “nuttiness,” for lack of a better term, will not even make it through the process of “voir dire” (i.e., juror pre-screening and questioning). Why should we force a person to demonstrate phony bias and/or to act like a “nut,” both of which are very easy to do even by someone with no acting training? Isn't it better to allow jurors to simply state that they are unable and/or unwilling to participate in a given case?
If the court is reasonable in its interactions with a juror, the juror is much more likely to be reasonable back. For example, a juror may state that s/he is able to participate in a case that will take at most a few days, but not one that is longer than that. S/he may say that s/he is comfortable participating in a civil case, but not a criminal case in which s/he will have to worry for the rest of his/her life that s/he and his/her family may end up “swimming with the fishes.”
This section ties into many other sections of the book—in particular, the section on volunteering for jury service. America needs to stop fighting unwinnable battles, and needs to accept that jury duty in the year 2015 has effectively become a volunteer-based system.
Go to Next Topic
Go to Table to Contents
Many people feel that a “jury duty dodger” (who has no reasonable excuse for being such) should lose his/her rights to a trial by jury if s/he is ever accused of a crime. I could literally completely fill two separate books on this matter—one in favor of this suggestion and one opposed to it. The matter is simply something for concerned citizens to think about.
There is then the matter of whether a person should be forced to lie if s/he doesn't want to serve on a particular case. A person may not want to serve due to the expected length of the case, due to fear of the ramifications of a particular verdict, or due to the content of the case which may be upsetting or that may conflict with religious restrictions. Of course, the juror may simply not “give a damn” about the case in question, or may find the subject matter too uninteresting or trivial to be bothered with. It is my understanding that judges typically try to be reasonable and understanding, but still sit in judgment of whether or not a given excuse is valid and reasonable.
It is a well known fact that a prospective juror who displays any type of bias (e.g., “I completely do/don't trust cops”) will not be picked for a case. This is also true for anyone whose mind has obviously been made up on a given case, or who is strongly leaning in a given direction. It is also well known that anyone who displays any type of “nuttiness,” for lack of a better term, will not even make it through the process of “voir dire” (i.e., juror pre-screening and questioning). Why should we force a person to demonstrate phony bias and/or to act like a “nut,” both of which are very easy to do even by someone with no acting training? Isn't it better to allow jurors to simply state that they are unable and/or unwilling to participate in a given case?
If the court is reasonable in its interactions with a juror, the juror is much more likely to be reasonable back. For example, a juror may state that s/he is able to participate in a case that will take at most a few days, but not one that is longer than that. S/he may say that s/he is comfortable participating in a civil case, but not a criminal case in which s/he will have to worry for the rest of his/her life that s/he and his/her family may end up “swimming with the fishes.”
This section ties into many other sections of the book—in particular, the section on volunteering for jury service. America needs to stop fighting unwinnable battles, and needs to accept that jury duty in the year 2015 has effectively become a volunteer-based system.
Go to Next Topic
Go to Table to Contents