Civic Duty

[jinman]

I'm certainly not sure of this, but I believe the accused always has the right to wave a jury trial and take the judge's decision. If you are afraid of the quality of jurors, having the judge decide might be your best option. Personally, I'm more afraid of lawyers than judges or juries.

 

[dmccarty]

One of the judges in a local county sent the SO out to get jury members. They went to Wally World.

I have been summoned twice. Once for a Federal Grand Jury down in Miami which was a good 60-120 minute drive depending no traffic. I was in college so there was no way I could get on the Jury that was going to be working for months. I REALLY wanted to serve though since it almost certainly was a large drug case. It would have been interesting.

Still in FLA I get summoned again but since I was working on the enforcement side of the CRIMINAL justice system they did not want me on a jury.

Here in NC I have never been summoned for Jury Duty which I find strange since I vote in every election. A coworker has been summoned a couple of times. Now that I live in a rural county and drive within feet of the court house twice a day, going on Jury Duty will be easy. When we lived in the city, just getting to the court room was a trial.

The Jury Pool may not be the best in all cases but it likely does represent the person on trial's peer group.

Later,
Dan

 

[riptides]

In my part of the Commonwealth, jury summons are hand delivered by an officer with a nice letter warning that if you don't show up or file cause why you shouldn't, a warrant will be issued for your arrest. Then when you get to the court house, the judge calls out your name, if your not present, the warrent is spot-issued for your arrest. After that, the jury hears the case intro. The potential jury pool can voice their opinion as to why they should NOT be allowed to serve. If they are excused, their name is re-entered into the potential selection pool again. The remaining people are then selected by the lawyers for trial. Anyone not selected is paid for the days services.

 

[brin]

Wouldn't it be a better system if we had " Professional Jurors " ? In other words there could be a Licenseing board set up in each state and a Licenseing class for all who would choose to become licensed and cerified jurors in each state and there would be continuing education required each year. The salary could be based on how many trials they were selected to be a juror on..so much a day. There are plenty of retired or disabled folks or homemakers...house husbands or house wives that might wish to do this to supplement the family income and even some folks with regular jobs might want to do this as well. At least this way we would have some trained folks there that wanted to be there and the rest of us could go about our lives without having to serve on a jury. It seems to me that would be a way to avoid some of the results we see like the OJ fiasco. What do you folks think ?

 

[dave1949]

Wouldn't it be a better system if we had " Professional Jurors " ? In other words there could be a Licenseing board set up in each state and a Licenseing class for all who would choose to become licensed and cerified jurors in each state and there would be continuing education required each year. The salary could be based on how many trials they were selected to be a juror on..so much a day. There are plenty of retired or disabled folks or homemakers...house husbands or house wives that might wish to do this to supplement the family income and even some folks with regular jobs might want to do this as well. At least this way we would have some trained folks there that wanted to be there and the rest of us could go about our lives without having to serve on a jury. It seems to me that would be a way to avoid some of the results we see like the OJ fiasco. What do you folks think ?

I think it would be open to a lot of abuses and a bit Orwellian. What we have is pretty messy, but that may be it's ultimate strength.
Dave.

 

[Phils]

Wouldn't it be a better system if we had " Professional Jurors " ? In other words there could be a Licenseing board set up in each state and a Licenseing class for all who would choose to become licensed and cerified jurors in each state and there would be continuing education required each year. The salary could be based on how many trials they were selected to be a juror on..so much a day. There are plenty of retired or disabled folks or homemakers...house husbands or house wives that might wish to do this to supplement the family income and even some folks with regular jobs might want to do this as well. At least this way we would have some trained folks there that wanted to be there and the rest of us could go about our lives without having to serve on a jury. It seems to me that would be a way to avoid some of the results we see like the OJ fiasco. What do you folks think ?

My first thought is that your suggestion has merit. Others may point out the problems.

And in 1998, I served on a capital murder trial. That one really surprised me because defense attorneys normally do not want a police officer, retired officer, or even an officer's family and friends on a jury in a criminal trial.

I've served on at least three long trials (and some short ones), and being self-employed they all hurt my income.

One that lasted six weeks was a medical malpractice trial. The insurance company that I'm an agent for was also the doctor's/hospital's insurance carrier and defense. I voted against us but the widow still lost.

Go figure.

Phil

 

[Cat_Driver]

I know this is "the best we got" and it will never change.

I was a witness to a guy pulling a gun and aiming it at my family as I was driving down the freeway. I called the CHP and they got him a few miles down the road and called to to testify as I left my name and number with 911.

Twice I was called and twice I drove two hours paid for parking gas and loss of pay for them to have me sit and wait for a few hours then inform me that the case has been moved to another date.

Well they did that to me twice and I felt that was enough. I ignored every summons after that.

I think the solution would be to pay people $100.00 a day for their service. Yes I know it would cost many millions, but the biggest argument is the loss of pay that no one can afford. The current system makes it a worthy gamble to not go and not get caught because people need the wages.

Now you also have baby sitters, fuel, travel time etc.etc. it's a losing proposition even at $100.00 a day for a lot of people.

Now lets take the small business owner, they would have to close their business for the days on jury duty, like the small stores where only the owner works. In my case my customers have time sensitive needs that can not be put off, either I do it THAT DAY or I love many thousands of dollars.

Sure I can postpone jury duty but I can never know when a customer will need my services and sure enough the postponed date will be a problem and on and on.

Perhaps a volunteer jury pool of retired people or unemployed people, hey wit a minute THAT'S IT.

The jury pool should be picked from all the people on unemployment, after all they are getting paid ANY WAY from the state of the government and we KNOW they aren't working so there would be no "job conflict".

Why pick a working heart surgeon for jury duty when you can pick an unemployed engineer.

 

[dave1949]

I think there are many significant changes coming in the future that will be enabled by the internet. Jury trials and voting procedures are good possibilities.

I would like to see proof of mental competency and basic knowledge for many civic related functions. Running for a public office, voting, jury duty; these are all open to any one who can draw breath; in some places even the dead vote . Problem is, I don't know how those things could be fairly tested for without bias and shenanigans.

At least for voting, a simple five question test would be a good thing. Questions that are totally objective. Such as; here is a map of the world, put your right index finger on Afghanistan.

Or maybe a requirement is having a high school diploma or GED. Make a diploma mean something besides you showed up for 12 years too.

Dave.

 

[tallyho8]

In our society, using these requirements would be politically incorrect and discriminating. In most places as long as you can make your X you can serve jury duty.

 

[turbo36]

I sat on a jury nearly 30 years ago, and determined a young man's fate for life. Armed robbery. One person already convicted for the crime was sentenced to 20 years, so this was a serious matter. The majority of this jury was people who simply had nothing else to do....their life revolved around soaps, TV talk shows, and who was visiting their neighbor. They tended to be myopic, petty, and absolutely devoid of the will to think critically. It was both a wonderful and a terrible experience. Thanks to the tireless efforts of one of the other two sane persons on the jury we reached a not guilty verdict....after days of deadlock. After court, the judge asked to meet with us. Lyle Castle, a man who went on to a distinguished career (on an appeals court I think), supported by both parties. He asked us our reasoning, why it took us four days (I think it was 4), thanked us, and then told us had it been trial by judge he would have rendered a not guilty verdict in 30 seconds. The three of us felt vindicated.

I will never seek to get out of jury duty for anything other than a family emergency. This jury was "peers" only to those who live their lives via soaps and springer/oprah. It was frightening to think my fate could be in the hands of a group like most of them. Our last holdout---an older woman (probably 60s)---just kept saying that he was probably guilty of something so it was safer to find him guilty than not guilty. What a genius. As I recall, there were only three people (including me) who were working....on a 12 person jury. I think the system is as good as those running it....and when we all bail out on jury duty, we leave the system to be run by whoever is available. Just my $.02 worth.

I commend for your courage to actually look at the facts and not be swayed by public paranoia. Did you ever see the movie "12 Angry Men" Starring Henry Fonda?