Should we allow people to self-certify that they have a legitimate “hardship” (in any manner of speaking) that prevents them from serving on jury duty in the short-term and/or indefinitely?
It is completely pointless as well as discriminatory to make people provide written proof (perhaps even including a written statement from a doctor) that they are unable to serve on jury duty either in the short-term and/or indefinitely. Let us first examine the case of people who have a completely legitimate physical and/or mental/emotional disability that prevents them from performing the duties required of a juror. Back in “The Day,” almost everyone had a family doctor. Obtaining such an excusal note would involve nothing more than a simple phone call. Presently, the matter is far from simple. Many doctors will not utter one single word or take any action whatsoever outside the context of a formal appointment and paid examination. Many people cannot afford the cost of a medical appointment, and many people have a difficult time obtaining medical appointments in a timely fashion. Many people cannot take time off from work and/or from their personal obligations to go to a doctor. Low-income Americans may have no choice but to clog up a doctor's office or welfare clinic (and waste taxpayer money in the process) in order to obtain such a note. If a person can't serve, then s/he can't serve, and the matter needs to be closed. “In an ideal world,” all requests to be excused from jury duty should be required to be in writing (especially requests for permanent excusal), but as discussed elsewhere in the book, a large segment of the population is simply unable to do such for various reasons—first and foremost illiteracy and poverty.
It is also worth noting that if a summoned individual with no legitimate medical excuse does not wish to serve, but doesn't feel comfortable simply ignoring his/her summons, it is not difficult for the individual to “fake” a physical or mental/emotional ailment, and obtain a note from a doctor who has a reputation for readily providing such notes. The individual could actually go to any doctor at all, and in our highly litigious society, the doctor would likely think twice about saying, “No, I refuse to acknowledge the symptoms that you are describing (e.g., back pain, depression, anxiety, AD(H)D, etc).” If one doctor refuses to write such a note, another will. The individual merely needs to have a sufficient amount of time and money to visit as many doctors as necessary until one cooperates. It is pointless to force someone to go through this meaningless logistical step and financial expense. It is also discriminatory because society is divided between those who have the time and money for such and those who do not.
Most significantly, I would argue that the United States has already set a precedent regarding self-certification of medical matters. Many states have moved to a system in which drivers can renew their licenses without having to retake a vision test at the DMV. Some states have dropped the matter completely, and some require that the driver submit a form in which s/he “self-certifies” that his/her vision is still sufficient for driving. Some readers may be thinking, “I don't live in such a state,” but that doesn't matter since a person whose vision has diminished can self-certify in his/her own state, and then drive into another state without having to pass a vision test at the border. I don't believe that the government wants people with poor vision on the roads. It has simply made the determination that it is not worth wasting taxpayer money on testing people's vision when a person who fails such as test will most likely continue to drive anyway, albeit illegally. In the context of jury duty, self-certification on the part of a prospective juror should be sufficient. If nothing else, there is no need to have someone take up space in the jury waiting room, waiting patiently to waste taxpayer money and courtroom time explaining to the judge why s/he can't serve, along with why s/he is unable to obtain a formal note that documents such.
There is then the matter of jurors who have a personal life situation which makes jury duty a hardship (either permanently or in the short-term), but the situation is subjective and/or difficult to either prove or disprove. One example that comes to mind is someone who has a relative (or friend or neighbor) who is near death, and the prospective juror wants to spend as much time by that person's side as possible. How can we (and more importantly should we) attempt to prove or disprove the validity of such a situation? Is s/he truly close to the person, or is it just an excuse? Is s/he truly the person's sole caretaker? A simple phone call to the court (or a letter if the person is able to write such) should put the matter completely to rest. Again, worst of all is if the person ends up reporting for jury duty under duress and protest only to waste a judge's time (and therefore courtroom time and taxpayer money) explaining him/herself.
Another example that comes to mind is that of a person who is “hanging onto life by a thread,” and is truly living “from one day to the next.” Such a person most likely prays each day that s/he won't get sick simply because s/he knows that if s/he misses even one day of work, it could start him/her on the proverbial “downward spiral” with monumental life consequences. This is just one of countless examples of reasons why a person may not be able to serve on jury duty. It is time for our courthouses to adopt a system of self-certification regarding such matters, and time to stop fighting an unwinnable battle. The people who are unable and/or unwilling to serve will either not do so, or will end up wasting courtroom time and taxpayer money in an attempt to demonstrate that they cannot. The people who are willing and able to serve will do so. That should be sufficient, and indeed it must be because that is how it will always be.
Go to Next Topic
Go to Table to Contents
It is also worth noting that if a summoned individual with no legitimate medical excuse does not wish to serve, but doesn't feel comfortable simply ignoring his/her summons, it is not difficult for the individual to “fake” a physical or mental/emotional ailment, and obtain a note from a doctor who has a reputation for readily providing such notes. The individual could actually go to any doctor at all, and in our highly litigious society, the doctor would likely think twice about saying, “No, I refuse to acknowledge the symptoms that you are describing (e.g., back pain, depression, anxiety, AD(H)D, etc).” If one doctor refuses to write such a note, another will. The individual merely needs to have a sufficient amount of time and money to visit as many doctors as necessary until one cooperates. It is pointless to force someone to go through this meaningless logistical step and financial expense. It is also discriminatory because society is divided between those who have the time and money for such and those who do not.
Most significantly, I would argue that the United States has already set a precedent regarding self-certification of medical matters. Many states have moved to a system in which drivers can renew their licenses without having to retake a vision test at the DMV. Some states have dropped the matter completely, and some require that the driver submit a form in which s/he “self-certifies” that his/her vision is still sufficient for driving. Some readers may be thinking, “I don't live in such a state,” but that doesn't matter since a person whose vision has diminished can self-certify in his/her own state, and then drive into another state without having to pass a vision test at the border. I don't believe that the government wants people with poor vision on the roads. It has simply made the determination that it is not worth wasting taxpayer money on testing people's vision when a person who fails such as test will most likely continue to drive anyway, albeit illegally. In the context of jury duty, self-certification on the part of a prospective juror should be sufficient. If nothing else, there is no need to have someone take up space in the jury waiting room, waiting patiently to waste taxpayer money and courtroom time explaining to the judge why s/he can't serve, along with why s/he is unable to obtain a formal note that documents such.
There is then the matter of jurors who have a personal life situation which makes jury duty a hardship (either permanently or in the short-term), but the situation is subjective and/or difficult to either prove or disprove. One example that comes to mind is someone who has a relative (or friend or neighbor) who is near death, and the prospective juror wants to spend as much time by that person's side as possible. How can we (and more importantly should we) attempt to prove or disprove the validity of such a situation? Is s/he truly close to the person, or is it just an excuse? Is s/he truly the person's sole caretaker? A simple phone call to the court (or a letter if the person is able to write such) should put the matter completely to rest. Again, worst of all is if the person ends up reporting for jury duty under duress and protest only to waste a judge's time (and therefore courtroom time and taxpayer money) explaining him/herself.
Another example that comes to mind is that of a person who is “hanging onto life by a thread,” and is truly living “from one day to the next.” Such a person most likely prays each day that s/he won't get sick simply because s/he knows that if s/he misses even one day of work, it could start him/her on the proverbial “downward spiral” with monumental life consequences. This is just one of countless examples of reasons why a person may not be able to serve on jury duty. It is time for our courthouses to adopt a system of self-certification regarding such matters, and time to stop fighting an unwinnable battle. The people who are unable and/or unwilling to serve will either not do so, or will end up wasting courtroom time and taxpayer money in an attempt to demonstrate that they cannot. The people who are willing and able to serve will do so. That should be sufficient, and indeed it must be because that is how it will always be.
Go to Next Topic
Go to Table to Contents