I served on a jury a couple of months ago. During voir dire, they will ask about any religious/political/philosophical positions that would make a potential juror unable to follow the evidence. Simply answer honestly. If they select you for the jury, so be it.
I’ve served on multiple juries, both criminal and civil. Sometimes the decisions are easy, sometimes not.
Don’t let the terms confuse you. While people use the term “justice” when referring to the courts, it’s not actually justice (that is, moral judgement), but enforcement of the law. I can understand your reticence about assisting the state in enforcement, but the jury is our best tool to ensure equitable enforcement. Instead of letting the state unilaterally decide who to act against, it has to get agreement from a jury.
Sometimes mercy and reconciliation are best served by conviction, so that the defendant has a chance to stop hurting themselves and/or others. And sometimes it’s not. As a member of the jury, you will help make the correct decision, instead of letting others do it for you.
senoy, I’m just curious. If someone beats you up and steals your car, would you call the police? or do you just say “them’s the brakes”?
asking in all sincerity - I’m trying to understand your philosophy.
It’s hard to say never having been in that position. It’s always much easier to say what you ‘would do’ when you’re not in the position of having to actually do it. Philosophically, I oppose war in all of its forms, but if the invading Madeupistanlandian hordes were to sack my town and kill my wife and kids, would I be capable of actually turning the other cheek? I don’t know. Would I have the courage not to fight back if I were being assaulted or my family’s lives were being threatened? I honestly don’t know. I know my stance on the issue, but I can’t say what I would do and I don’t judge those who do take those actions. Life is messy and ideals and a nickel will get you a cup of coffee in the 50s.
I can say that I have had things stolen from me before and I have not called the police. They were minor things though not worth more than a few hundred dollars. I think that in the event of a big theft, ideally I would call the police, but decline to press charges. Maybe that’s right and maybe that’s wrong, but I think that’s how I would approach it.
By participating in the law though, I am tacitly endorsing it and I am certainly party to any punishments that result from my decision. I could just say ‘It’s the best we can do’ or ‘It’s better than the alternative,’ but that’s the logic that has led to any number of countless atrocities. And the reality is that it really isn’t the best we can do. Our prison population is quite frankly shameful. It should be an embarrassment to every person who lives here. Saying, ‘it’s better than it would be under a non-juried system’ really forces us to ask, “How much worse could it possibly be?” 1 out of every 5 prisoners in the world is American. Almost 1 in 30 American adults is currently in the prison system in some capacity. Are you telling me that juries are the thin line preventing what exactly? We’re running out of minority men to lock up, where do we go from here?
Thanks for the reply.
Why call the police if you don’t press charges? you’re just wasting their time?
Cards on the table: I’m a lawyer and have been both prosecutor and defence. I’ve never understood this position, and I welcome your explanations, to help me to learn.
By calling the police, I inform them that a crime has been committed and it allows them to establish a pattern that could be used to prevent such things happening in the future. I see it as doing the least possible hurt to others while keeping my conscience clean. Maybe the police discover that it’s Bob that’s stealing cars. Maybe simply knowing that the police know he’s a thief is enough to cause him to reform. Maybe Joe’s car gets stolen next week and the police now know that Bob is the kind of guy that steals cars. I don’t feel that I can force my convictions on Joe and preventing the police from having all the information that could help Joe is in some ways making a decision for him based on my convictions rather than his own.
Actually enjoyed the experience of being a juror - not the travel or selection, but the actual deliberation process. Not quite Twelve Angry Men, but the differing opinions on what we had heard and observed were an education.
As the Foreman for one nearly ‘open and shut case’, I was sorely tempted to say “Book 'em, Danno - Murder One”, but managed to avoid the possible contempt charge by just saying “We find the defendant guilty”. I was very disappointed that saying ‘Guilty’ in a courtroom did not have the requisite reverberating echo of TV courtrooms. That is so wrong.
Every citizen is tacitly responsible for our “justice” system. You don’t avoid that responsibility by not participating–in fact, you’re more responsible–you had the chance to make it a little better by serving on a jury, yet refused.
But more importantly, I think you’re looking at the forest and missing the tree in front of you. It doesn’t matter how terrible the system is. When you’re on the jury, you help decide how the state handles this one person. Perhaps it would be better if this person is convicted. Perhaps it would be better if they weren’t. The jury, not the system, decides for this one person. Do them justice by making a just decision.
If you take away the jury, the system is making the decision without direct input from the people. Given that the system is terrible, that is making things worse, not better.
I think you misunderstand. I think that justice is better left out of human and institutional hands, so for ‘just that person’ I will always vote not-guilty. That’s where the problem arises. I believe in complete mercy and forgiveness, so for any random ‘just that person’ I’m not going to ever vote guilty. That’s fine by my conscience, but it seems like it’s something a prosecutor should know. There is no preponderance of evidence that will sway that vote. If the defendant stands up in the court room says, “I shot that kid in the head and I have no regrets.” My response is “I’m sorry you feel that way, you shouldn’t have done such a thing, try and do better in the future. Not guilty.”
I understand you. I don’t think you’re understanding my point: sometimes “guilty” is the merciful outcome for the defendant.
You will be asked during voir dire.
Again, IANAL, but my father was a Federal judge and when I read your words Max Torque, I hear his voice…
It is best to completely be open to your religious and philosophical beliefs when faced with jury duty, no judge or lawyer wants an internally tormented juror on any case, they are not there to test the boundaries of your philosophical convictions, they are there to impanel a jury of the defendant’s peers to determine if they have violated one or more laws in the eyes of the jury…
More generally, jurors are typically asked something along the lines of whether they believe they are capable of impartially applying the law to the facts as they determine them to be. I would expect a juror who answers “no” to be dismissed.
Them’s the brakes. Same as last time someone beat me up, and same as last time someone stole my motorcycle. I can think of few situations which would be improved by the involvement of the police or the courts.
I’m unlikely to be called for jury duty, and if called, unlikely to be selected.
I used to get called for jury duty every time I was eligible (after a year, or two, I can’t remember specifically which). My company paid for unlimited jury duty service, and I was convinced there was a connection between my rate of being called and my company’s jury duty pay policy. But every time I asked someone at the court about it, they said they had no idea what an employer’s jury duty policies were. Right. As soon as the company changed to only paying for 10 days of service, I didn’t get called again. Now that I’m retired, I wouldn’t mind serving. I enjoyed (for some meaning of the word) my previous experiences. I don’t mind the drive to downtown L.A., and there are cool things to do during the extended lunch times they give you. Sadly, Kosher Burrito is sob gone. But I’ve only been called once in the four years since I retired, and I didn’t have to even go in. Compton was a major pain. Because there had been “incidents” in the stairwells, they were locked. The jury assembly room was on the second floor. There was a bank of 6 elevator cars, but there was NEVER more than one or maybe two working on any given day. You had to get there at least 15 minutes early to be close to being on time.
My first jury duty “tour” was when I was a sophomore in college. It was the summer, and I was sent to the Santa Monice courthouse. Cool. Also, I worked for the County and was paid for my service even though I was a parttime employee. Which was very cool because I had to pay for my college expenses (fees, books, etc.) myself. And it was for an entire month. I could walk to the pier or the the mall. It was fun. Sonny and Cher got their divorce while I was there. And I served on one panel with Henry Mancini’s wife, Ginny, who was a really nice lady.
My one complaint? They had muzak in the jury assembly room, and it was on a relatively short loop. One of the musical selections was the theme from the Ironsides TV show, and it started out with a big ol’ siren wail. Made me jump. Every. Damn. Time.
You can volunteer for the Civil Grand Jury, it’s term is one year, and they meet once or twice a week, the pay is higher, but still small.
When I lived in rural Ohio, I got called constantly (I think it was six times in 15 years, plus once when I got a summons while I was away at college), though I rarely actually had to go in.
Didn’t get called in the four years I was in Los Angeles. We’ve been in Maryland for almost 3 years and I got called a couple of months ago.
Unfortunately, I have dog with dementia at home and can’t be away much right now. But I considered it when I got an unsolicited invitation in the mail a little while ago.
Bumping because a month ago, I received a jury summons for tomorrow. One can presume there are no jury trials scheduled for tomorrow because I received a text stating that no jurors are required. Verified by calling the juror information number on the summons.
So I’m good for at least another three years.