Some points about my recent jury duty summons notification letter and included information sheet (Part 1 of 2)
I would like to make very clear that I do not have a “bone to pick” with the town and/or county in which I live. This section of the book is included because it ties together and provides concrete examples of many points that are made throughout the book.
For reference, I was born in 1972, and am 43 years old as of the time of this writing. I lived the first 30 years of my life in NYC, and my most recent 10 years in Wake County, NC which includes Raleigh. Raleigh is the capital of North Carolina, and is one of America's major cities. It is modern, has a diverse demographic, and was recently rated by Forbes magazine as being one of the best places in the US for business and careers. Wake County also includes the town of Apex which was recently rated by Money magazine as the best place to live in the US. The town in which I live, Cary, is also considered among the best places to live. The county, of course, includes some low-income and struggling areas as well. I mention all of this because as people read this section, I would rather they not “roll their eyes” while assuming that I am talking about some “half-assed” part of the country, for lack of a better description.
This section refers to my recent summons for jury duty. Firstly, I object to the use of the word “summons.” In a generic legal sense, the word is used to mean “a call to appear in court,” but I feel that the average person has come to associate the word with some type of “wrongdoing” on the part of the individual who has been summoned. The document title, which is the very first thing the recipient reads, has the connotation of “us vs. you” (i.e., the government vs. the anonymous random “nobody” off the street). Instead, I suggest that “summons to appear” be changed to “notice to appear.” The connotation is different, and avoids the attitude of, “Do this or else...”
The first full sentence begins with, “By order of the Superior Court, you are hereby summoned to appear for jury duty, etc.” Once again, we have the connotation of “us vs. you.” I don't see what purpose this serves in the context of a society in which the majority of citizens have nothing but mistrust of and disapproval of the government. Instead, I suggest that the document begin with, “You have been randomly selected to serve on jury duty. This an important civic responsibility, and a service that you will be performing for your fellow citizens in your community. It is also the cornerstone of American democracy. The law requires that you either attend on the date noted, or reschedule your service to a more convenient time unless you are formally excused from service by the court.” I am willing to bet that juror turnout would be at least somewhat higher, and certainly not any lower than it currently is.
Next, there is a very prominent line in bold, underline, and all caps that reads, “FAILURE TO OBEY THIS SUMMONS IS PUNISHABLE BY LAW.” I will respond in kind as follows: THREATS (ESPECIALLY VAGUE ONES WRITTEN IN BOLD, UNDERLINE, AND ALL CAPS) USUALLY ACCOMPLISH EITHER NOTHING OR THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE THREATENER IS HOPING TO ACCOMPLISH.
By not including any details on the matter, the government simply appears helpless and “wishy-washy,” and that is the last thing our society needs right now. It is reminiscent of an inexperienced schoolyard bully trying his hand at his craft by saying, “Gimme your lunch money...or else...” It should go without saying that jury duty should not be a matter of threats, and should not be a matter of “us vs. you.” What good is an angry or sullen juror sitting in the waiting room with his/her arms folded, biding his/her time until s/he can take the necessary steps to be dismissed? What good is a potential juror thinking, “Hmm, it seems that no one at the courthouse even knows what the penalty is. I'll just toss the summons in the trash and take my chances.” Why does jury duty have to be like this as opposed to the civic duty and community service that it was designed to be?
Returning to the topic, the summons includes a reference to a phone number (the so-called “jury message line”) that is to be called after 5:30pm on the business night before the date to appear in order to see if you are needed to attend. Nowhere on the summons is there any mention of how to actually talk to a live human being on the phone who can answer questions and/or address concerns. If such can be accomplished via that phone number, it certainly doesn't say so. The letter includes the URL of the website page on which jury duty information can be found (this is covered later in the book), and it again references the “jury message line”—this time referring to it as “automated.” Juror turnout would almost certainly be improved (probably significantly so) if there was a statement on the summons reading, “If you have any questions or concerns, or would like to reschedule your jury service to a more convenient date range, please call the Juror Help Line during normal business hours. One of our friendly, trained staff members will be happy to assist you.”
I do not entertain for even one moment that there is no money in the budget for this. America is a very wealthy, first-world country that somehow finds money to provide very costly services to our large and growing collection of inmates. Furthermore, there is no reason why courts cannot hire volunteers or unpaid interns to staff the phones as described above. There is also no reason why some qualified inmates cannot be trained to do such a job instead of making license plates or whatever it is that they do for work experience. Many non-violent inmates do administrative work for a “token” salary as job training both within prison as well as outside of prison as part of daytime work-release programs. There is no excuse for courts to not treat prospective jurors as human beings, and to leave them with uncertainties that may make them less inclined to report for duty, and/or more apprehensive about the entire matter.
This topic is continued in Part 2 of 2
Go to Table to Contents
For reference, I was born in 1972, and am 43 years old as of the time of this writing. I lived the first 30 years of my life in NYC, and my most recent 10 years in Wake County, NC which includes Raleigh. Raleigh is the capital of North Carolina, and is one of America's major cities. It is modern, has a diverse demographic, and was recently rated by Forbes magazine as being one of the best places in the US for business and careers. Wake County also includes the town of Apex which was recently rated by Money magazine as the best place to live in the US. The town in which I live, Cary, is also considered among the best places to live. The county, of course, includes some low-income and struggling areas as well. I mention all of this because as people read this section, I would rather they not “roll their eyes” while assuming that I am talking about some “half-assed” part of the country, for lack of a better description.
This section refers to my recent summons for jury duty. Firstly, I object to the use of the word “summons.” In a generic legal sense, the word is used to mean “a call to appear in court,” but I feel that the average person has come to associate the word with some type of “wrongdoing” on the part of the individual who has been summoned. The document title, which is the very first thing the recipient reads, has the connotation of “us vs. you” (i.e., the government vs. the anonymous random “nobody” off the street). Instead, I suggest that “summons to appear” be changed to “notice to appear.” The connotation is different, and avoids the attitude of, “Do this or else...”
The first full sentence begins with, “By order of the Superior Court, you are hereby summoned to appear for jury duty, etc.” Once again, we have the connotation of “us vs. you.” I don't see what purpose this serves in the context of a society in which the majority of citizens have nothing but mistrust of and disapproval of the government. Instead, I suggest that the document begin with, “You have been randomly selected to serve on jury duty. This an important civic responsibility, and a service that you will be performing for your fellow citizens in your community. It is also the cornerstone of American democracy. The law requires that you either attend on the date noted, or reschedule your service to a more convenient time unless you are formally excused from service by the court.” I am willing to bet that juror turnout would be at least somewhat higher, and certainly not any lower than it currently is.
Next, there is a very prominent line in bold, underline, and all caps that reads, “FAILURE TO OBEY THIS SUMMONS IS PUNISHABLE BY LAW.” I will respond in kind as follows: THREATS (ESPECIALLY VAGUE ONES WRITTEN IN BOLD, UNDERLINE, AND ALL CAPS) USUALLY ACCOMPLISH EITHER NOTHING OR THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE THREATENER IS HOPING TO ACCOMPLISH.
By not including any details on the matter, the government simply appears helpless and “wishy-washy,” and that is the last thing our society needs right now. It is reminiscent of an inexperienced schoolyard bully trying his hand at his craft by saying, “Gimme your lunch money...or else...” It should go without saying that jury duty should not be a matter of threats, and should not be a matter of “us vs. you.” What good is an angry or sullen juror sitting in the waiting room with his/her arms folded, biding his/her time until s/he can take the necessary steps to be dismissed? What good is a potential juror thinking, “Hmm, it seems that no one at the courthouse even knows what the penalty is. I'll just toss the summons in the trash and take my chances.” Why does jury duty have to be like this as opposed to the civic duty and community service that it was designed to be?
Returning to the topic, the summons includes a reference to a phone number (the so-called “jury message line”) that is to be called after 5:30pm on the business night before the date to appear in order to see if you are needed to attend. Nowhere on the summons is there any mention of how to actually talk to a live human being on the phone who can answer questions and/or address concerns. If such can be accomplished via that phone number, it certainly doesn't say so. The letter includes the URL of the website page on which jury duty information can be found (this is covered later in the book), and it again references the “jury message line”—this time referring to it as “automated.” Juror turnout would almost certainly be improved (probably significantly so) if there was a statement on the summons reading, “If you have any questions or concerns, or would like to reschedule your jury service to a more convenient date range, please call the Juror Help Line during normal business hours. One of our friendly, trained staff members will be happy to assist you.”
I do not entertain for even one moment that there is no money in the budget for this. America is a very wealthy, first-world country that somehow finds money to provide very costly services to our large and growing collection of inmates. Furthermore, there is no reason why courts cannot hire volunteers or unpaid interns to staff the phones as described above. There is also no reason why some qualified inmates cannot be trained to do such a job instead of making license plates or whatever it is that they do for work experience. Many non-violent inmates do administrative work for a “token” salary as job training both within prison as well as outside of prison as part of daytime work-release programs. There is no excuse for courts to not treat prospective jurors as human beings, and to leave them with uncertainties that may make them less inclined to report for duty, and/or more apprehensive about the entire matter.
This topic is continued in Part 2 of 2
Go to Table to Contents