How 'bout because your employer has the same access to the court system as any individual citizen, and that this is one of the social costs of that system? Maybe a nice little opt-out system would work, where the company doesn’t have to pay employees for jury duty time, but then it’s prohibited from any recourse to the courts. But everybody likes being able to receive benefits without paying any of the costs.
Still, I like your habeas corpus idea. Tell 'em that up front and you’re sure to get bounced for cause!
I go in for jury dute on the 26th of Feb, 2001. This is my first time, so I’m really interested in seeing how it goes. I registered to vote when 18, yet after living in 3 states and over some 24 years, this is my first time.
I’m curious if I’ll get bounced like Satan did, since I wear my hair long, too. I’m also college educated, gay and Wiccan. That ought to go over well.
Wish me luck, I’ll report back as soon as I can. Who knows what tawdry tale of judical woe I’ll have to listen to.
As a small business owner, I just want to say that this type of thinking really pisses me off.
Here are the problems with this line of illogic as I see it:
[li]If an employer has the same access to the court system, then why should he be the only paying for the jury?[/li]
[li]About your opt-out, why would you guarantee acess to the court system for everybody, regardless of their status and income, except for business owners who can’t afford to bear the brunt of the costs for everybody else?[/li]
Screw the guy you want to make pay for the whole thing.
It seems that you, as an employee are the only one really looking to get something for nothing.
Maybe I think the social cost of this falls on YOU the individual to volunteer your time on the jury. Stop being so generous with my pockets and start emptying yours.
[li]If a business is making a ton of cash, then the business is generating more proceeds to the state through taxes. It seems to me that a succesful business is already paying more than “it’s share” of the costs.[/li]
[li]Owning a business and having a ton of cash do not go hand in hand.[/li]
–Of course, you can’t be held responsible for every under-capitalized entrepreneur can you?
::all references to you are in the universal use of the word. This post was directed at a type of thinking, not a specific poster::
I certainly agree with manny that improvments are needed. But- note mannys example- the conditions do not stop him from doing his duty. However- they certainly give him the right to bitch about it.
Freedom- you forget that Corps, being "persons’ can have the right to a jury trial in civil & some other actions- but a “Corp.” cannot serve on a Jury- so it does it’s civic duty by paying its employeees so they can sit on juries. However, note I said “most” businesses- thus i leave it open for certain small sole props & such to be exempt- as they are on so many things. But I do not want us to get sidetracked into exactly which types of businessesshould have to pay- my thesis is even if you are not paid by your employer- you should go.
I’m not. While it looks good on paper it’s lousy in practice. I agree it is my duty to sit on a jury if called under the current system but I think the current system is whacked.
Ask any judge who presides over jury trials and they will tell you stories of flat out retarded juries. This goes beyond the judge merely having a different opinion than the jurists to a bone deep shock at the idiocy they witness.
I’m surprised no one has suggested a professional jury system. This could take a variety of forms such as:
A full time job. Jurists are chosen at random or a computer applies a model to the random decisions that says “The demographic makeup of the community is such and such” and then selects jurists randomly from various ethnic pools to match.
A part time thing people do for extra cash and/or to assuage their need for doing their civic duty such as the army reserves. Employers are currently made to allow one weekend a month and two weeks a year(?) for this service. The same thing could be done for jurists. They could be chosen similar to the idea in #1. During their time ‘on duty’ they sit around waiting to see if they get called. Once their two weeks (or whatever) is up they go home. They still get yanked on a random basis so someone can’t get to them and bribe or threaten them.
That’s just two options. In both cases the jurists get paid fairly well. This would also require some kind of review system to grade jurors. Maybe after each trial jurors rank each other in a variety of categories. Then each juror gets reviewed yearly to see how his or her numbers measure up.
As cases get more difficult and technical and lawyers get more savvy at confusing the issues a decent professional jury becomes almost mandatory. This would also decrease the need for sequestration because presumably these jurists would be better than most in ignoring the media and judging a case on its merits (although such a thing might be needed in some extreme cases).
FWIW I’ve never been called for jury duty. My friend who is 10 days older than me has been called four times in 15 years. I registered for the selective service when I was supposed to and have been a registered voter since the first time I could vote and my driver’s license has always been in good order. I have no idea why he’s gotten tagged so many times while I haven’t once.
If I ever am called I will go and answer the attorney’s questions truthfully and let the chips fall where they may.
That makes as much sense as saying that since rescue workers provide a valuable service, every time there’s a rescue a corporation should be randomly chosen to pay all the costs. If supporting juries is a civic duty, why not tax all the corporations equally, instead of picking one to shoulder 1/12 the cost?
Fine with me, Ryan. I have no problem with requiring society as a whole to pick up all costs relating to a juror’s service. Of course, that’s going to cost a lot more than even the $50 per day they’re paying manhattan in NYC. (IIRC, Dallas County proposed to pay me $5 a day when
they belatedly called me to serve.)
But since legislators clearly don’t have the guts to use tax money to adequately compensating jurors, I figure somebody has to pick up the tab. Employers are make a logical target, but feel free to suggest alternatives. That is, so long as they make it possible for the largest number of people to serve.
Sure, the bad conditions don’t stop me from going – I have a very easy life. I make gobs and gobs of money (relative to most people), which gobs keep flowing while I’m on jury duty. Even if they didn’t, the loss of income would not be a severe hardship unless I got on the OJ jury or somesuch. I’m no one’s primary caregiver, so schlepping out to the JFK Ramada under the armed, watchful eye of some bailiff racking up the pre-retirement overtime is merely an annoyance – not a threat to my children. I snore, so having a forced roommate is his problem, not mine. I routinely ignore the judge’s instructions regarding consumption of media, and tell him I’m going to do so. If it pisses him off, he can deal with my lawyer, whom I can afford.
All I’m saying is that in many jurisdictions for many people jury duty is a much bigger hardship than it is for a secure, unencumbered middle-class person. Think about that next time before you get on your high horse and shout about what others “should” do.
In CA, you can be called for either regular or standby status. You report, hang out in the jury room for x number of hours, then either leave or go upstairs as part of a pool. Then, if the case settles at the last minute, you go back down to the jury room or go home. Or, you may get to answer a few questions and see if you get on the jury. If not, you go back into the jury room or go home. I have never gotten past the “settled at the last minute” stage, even though I’ve been called several times.
Standby means that you call in every day after 5:00 pm for a week or so, and maybe not even go to the courthouse.
One day, and the pain is over. It’s really simple- think of it as a mental health day off work.
I’m all for going to a professional jury situation. As the old joke goes…“Who wants their fate decided by twelve people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty?”
Funnily enough my coworker and dad (both lawyers) were both picked to be on the jury of a third-offense DUI case last fall, along with a woman who has been the personal assistant to a judge for like 25 years. They had the guy convicted so fast they were out by four. Both of them said “why the hell didn’t she (the public defender) strike us???” Even they knew they wouldn’t be great JURORS (that’s for you, TOM) for the defense, and if they had had the case, they would never have left themselves on the panel. (That doesn’t make a ton 'o sense, but you know what I mean.)
Actually, when I was called for jury duty in CA a couple years ago, “standby” for me meant that I had to call in every morning at 10.00 am for two weeks, with the possibility that I might have to head to the Court immediately. As I was temping at the time, this meant that I had to be unemployed for two weeks, because who is going to take on a temp that might have to leave at 10.00?
And of course, as a temp I didn’t get paid for my two weeks off work. And since our great :rolleyes: Governor Pete Wilson thought you shouldn’t have to pay people to do their civic duty, the only reimbursement you could get from California was $5 a day, and come to think of that I never did receive it anyway. Damn good thing I’d enough money saved up from the previous couple weeks to pay my rent that month!
Sorry but I’m f*ked if I’m going to go through that again, civic duty or not.
Voir Dire: (n), A French phrase which means “jury tampering.”
– Vin Suprynowicz
My one experience with jury duty was about two years ago. For the first two days, we all sat around for two hours each morning until 10am, when they told us no cases were going to be tried and we could all go home.
The third day, there was one trial. A bunch of us, myself included, filed into the room, sat down, and underwent jury selection. The prosecutor booted me out because I was not a sheep. The other folks all bleated that they would gladly convict anyone of any offense, no matter how ridiculous the “crime” (“a fifteen-year-old with a bag of weed DESERVES the death penalty, by God!”), if the wisdom of our state legislators caused them to declare something to be illegal.
Personally, I would be GLAD for the sheeple I was interviewed with to get out of the jury pool (or the gene pool for that matter). I sure wouldn’t want them judging me – the twelve dumbest people the lawyers could find, barely able to tie their own shoes much less think for themselves? Thanks, but I’d rather take my chances with the Spanish Inquisition.
Also, to mention: my county apparently tracks potential jurors’ employment and preferentially calls people from the companies out here which pay their staffers while on jury duty – the county feels that these people are less likely to refuse (since they’ll still be getting paid) and the county doesn’t care if it disproportionately screws those employers.
Jeff, I recall a bit of discussion over professional jurors after the OJ fiasco. Makes a lot of sense to me.
I was forman on a 6 person jury in a DUI case. We split, 3/3, and after 6 hours a deliberating, no one budged. We hung.
I was amazed at the OJ-like disregarding of evidence by the 3 who were in favor of aquittal (as they were probably amazed at what we considered ‘evidence,’ I’m sure). But they simply did not believe the arresting officer (why?). I was shocked. It seems quite likely that anyone can get away with anything in our legal system.
If everyone else through the legal process is paid, then make the jurors professional too, with a term of “office” not exceed ____ years.
I, too, am among the ones who have never been called for jury duty, even though I’ve been registered to vote since age 18 (22 years) and had a driver’s license all the while.
Two of my co-workers have been summoned for jury duty within the past couple of years. My boss ordered each of them to tell the courts that they worked in a critical position and that their absence from work would cause a severe hardship to our business. (These people were a draftsman and an executive secretary for a consulting engineering firm, by the way.) The draftsman got off (he lived in another county), but the secretary was told in no uncertain terms that if she couldn’t appear because of a work emergency, that she could set up a time when it would be more convenient — or else SHE could appear in court.
I think it would be interesting to serve on a jury, though costly. Not only would I be losing income (c’mon, you don’t expect the above mentioned jerk to pay me when I’m on jury duty, do you?), but the jury pay is less than what I would pay for the child care providers for my two sons.
My two sons also bring up a major issue for me. I consider it my duty to serve on a jury if called, but when do they bring up the subject of sequestration? Serving on the jury is one thing, but being separated from my children is another. I would do everything in my power to get out of jury duty if it appeared that I would be sequestered for a period exceeding 2-3 days. IMO, my duties as a parent outrank my duties as a juror if serving on the jury would force me to be unable to be with my children — although I have the feeling the law does not see it that way.
Depends on the location and the jurisdiction. I have been called to serve on a Federal jury (didn’t get seated). I seem to recall the explanatory documents I was given for serving indicated that certain forms of child care might have been a valid excuse. But it can vary by whether it is a circuit court, a municipal court, a federal court and by where in the country it is located.
