The statement below was used as the opening statement of the book. What does the word “reasonably” mean in the context in which I have used it?
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.
Note that this topic is intended to be read within the context of the entire book—especially the topic following this one which discusses why it is important for people to show up for jury duty if they can reasonably do so.
All citizens should be permitted to determine for themselves whether serving on jury duty is something they can “reasonably” do on the date summoned, and/or whether they need to postpone their service to some time in the future. Citizens should also be able to determine for themselves whether or not they are “reasonably” able to serve at all either in the short or long-term. Stated another way, a citizen should not have to explain him/herself to a judge or court clerk unless that citizen has been formally charged with a crime. Furthermore, it is a complete waste of taxpayer money to have a judge (and/or clerk) listen to (or read) excuse after excuse, especially in the context of our “underfunded” and “backlogged” court system, and especially considering that such excuses may be unprovable lies and/or exaggerations. If nothing else, the personal reasons for which someone may not reasonably be able to serve should not be the concern of the US Government.
It is important to keep in mind that many people can and do lie, especially when they are able to rationalize the lie in some way, or if they feel that the lie serves some greater good—perhaps their personal political agenda or just themselves for selfish reasons. People will even lie after they have placed their hand upon a holy book, and have sworn an oath to tell the truth. It may be that the individual does not have any affiliation whatsoever with the particular holy book and religion endorsed by the American justice system. The individual may also feel as though s/he is simply doing as his/her Higher Power(s) would have him/her do.
We constantly read and hear about America's underfunded and backlogged court systems, and about how accused parties have to wait for lengthy periods of time (often in prison) before their cases go to trial. We also hear about how courts have no practical choice but to offer very attractive plea bargains to accused parties in order to push them through the “revolving door” of the system as rapidly as possible. In that context, do we really need to take up a judge's valuable time (and courtroom time itself) listening to “Juror A” say that s/he suffers from back pain and can't sit still for very long, but is unable to go to a doctor to get a note (for whatever reason)? Does the judge need to listen to “Juror B” say that s/he is self-employed, and will not be able to pay his/her rent if s/he misses even one day of work? Does the judge need to listen to “Juror C” say that s/he is the sole caretaker of his/her dying cousin?
Perhaps these requests for excusal are legitimate. Maybe they are just an act, and maybe they are partially true. It is time to allow people to decide for themselves if they can reasonably serve at the time they are called (based on their own definition of “reasonable”), or if they can reasonably serve at some point in the future when their life's circumstances are different, or if they simply cannot serve at all. It is time for us to accept the fact that anyone who doesn't want to serve will find a way to not serve, and it is pointless to waste any government resources on a futile attempt at fighting such.
Please read the next topic which discusses why it is extremely important for people to show up for jury duty if they can reasonably do so.
Go to Next Topic
Go to Table to Contents
Note that this topic is intended to be read within the context of the entire book—especially the topic following this one which discusses why it is important for people to show up for jury duty if they can reasonably do so.
All citizens should be permitted to determine for themselves whether serving on jury duty is something they can “reasonably” do on the date summoned, and/or whether they need to postpone their service to some time in the future. Citizens should also be able to determine for themselves whether or not they are “reasonably” able to serve at all either in the short or long-term. Stated another way, a citizen should not have to explain him/herself to a judge or court clerk unless that citizen has been formally charged with a crime. Furthermore, it is a complete waste of taxpayer money to have a judge (and/or clerk) listen to (or read) excuse after excuse, especially in the context of our “underfunded” and “backlogged” court system, and especially considering that such excuses may be unprovable lies and/or exaggerations. If nothing else, the personal reasons for which someone may not reasonably be able to serve should not be the concern of the US Government.
It is important to keep in mind that many people can and do lie, especially when they are able to rationalize the lie in some way, or if they feel that the lie serves some greater good—perhaps their personal political agenda or just themselves for selfish reasons. People will even lie after they have placed their hand upon a holy book, and have sworn an oath to tell the truth. It may be that the individual does not have any affiliation whatsoever with the particular holy book and religion endorsed by the American justice system. The individual may also feel as though s/he is simply doing as his/her Higher Power(s) would have him/her do.
We constantly read and hear about America's underfunded and backlogged court systems, and about how accused parties have to wait for lengthy periods of time (often in prison) before their cases go to trial. We also hear about how courts have no practical choice but to offer very attractive plea bargains to accused parties in order to push them through the “revolving door” of the system as rapidly as possible. In that context, do we really need to take up a judge's valuable time (and courtroom time itself) listening to “Juror A” say that s/he suffers from back pain and can't sit still for very long, but is unable to go to a doctor to get a note (for whatever reason)? Does the judge need to listen to “Juror B” say that s/he is self-employed, and will not be able to pay his/her rent if s/he misses even one day of work? Does the judge need to listen to “Juror C” say that s/he is the sole caretaker of his/her dying cousin?
Perhaps these requests for excusal are legitimate. Maybe they are just an act, and maybe they are partially true. It is time to allow people to decide for themselves if they can reasonably serve at the time they are called (based on their own definition of “reasonable”), or if they can reasonably serve at some point in the future when their life's circumstances are different, or if they simply cannot serve at all. It is time for us to accept the fact that anyone who doesn't want to serve will find a way to not serve, and it is pointless to waste any government resources on a futile attempt at fighting such.
Please read the next topic which discusses why it is extremely important for people to show up for jury duty if they can reasonably do so.
Go to Next Topic
Go to Table to Contents