P.P.S.- Kudos to you for feeling it is your duty as a citizen of the USA and an obligation to serve on a jury. Get it through your thick skull that many of us don’t, and most likely won’t. Some of us think the Jury system is inherently flawed, others of us have hardships, time problems, money problems and other priorities in our lives.
hey man, freedom ain’t free.
:: ducks, runs ::
And because freedom is not free, everyone, through their taxes, should contribute to the justice system, rather than conscript a few people and expect them to make all the sacrifice for everyone else.
Oops, I should have inserted “unborn” in there. He was 8 months old in gestation, IIRC, which means he would have probably lived had his mother not been murdered.
Most are making no sacrifice at all. My employer, when I served, paid unlimited jury duty. I got my full wages during that time. That IS a rarity among private employers. But there are plenty of employers who who pay for a month. 10 days is pretty much standard, at least in California.
Government employess, I’m told, all have unlimited jury duty pay.
But some folk’s employers pay nothing. And some folks are self-employed and trying to scrape by.
How can we compare the sacrifice of those who are paid their full wage, along with the 15 bucks a day, to those who get diddly-squat?
I am self employed and don’t get a cent for serving. Full disclosure: I’ve been called up five or six times. To be honest, I’ve never even made it into the box. Each time they ended up filling up the jury before my name was called so it was only one day each time. I asked for and received a postponement one time because I had a planned business trip two days after the day I was there.
Is the system flawed? Absolutely. Should people with a true hardship get a pass? Of course. As I said from the start, if there is serious family illness for example, you shouldn’t have to do it. I’d also give a pass to full time students or someone with newborns, etc. I also wouldn’t expect most people to have to do a six month deal like the Peterson jury.
If you get the benefits of society, you have to shoulder some of the burden. Too fucking bad if you don’t like it. For the most part it’s only two or three days. If you don’t do it, someone else will have to. It’s a major pain in the ass, it’s usually boring and there is a financial loss associated with it. What makes you more important than the guy next door who shows up? That’s my main issue. The rest of us will have to serve more time to make up for people who don’t bother.
If you ever find yourself on the wrong side of the law, you’re going to wish that there are some intelligent people who decided to give enough of a shit making a decision about your life.
Haj
Because at that point they’d be employees of the justice system and no longer impartial, so it would be unconstitutional.
First, there is a differnce between compensation for lost income and being an employee.
Second, even if jurors were “employed”, there is nothing to suggest that their “employment” would make them inpartial. Judges are employed by the justice system and are deemed to be impartial. Court staff are eomployed by the justice system and are deemed to be impartial.
That’s what happens when you make a generalization, O clever one; you don’t intend it to apply to everyone.
Sigh.
There seems to be a common notion that lawyers want a jury composed of a bunch of slack-jawed, mouth breathing troglodytes that they can befuddle into believing whatever blasphemous bullshit they’re being paid their blood money to spoon feed them this week. This image, while quaint, is untrue.
Lawyers don’t want stupid jurors. Lawyers don’t want smart jurors. Lawyers don’t care about your IQ or how many degrees you have, so long as the degree doesn’t relate to the subject matter of the trial. Equal attention, if not more, will be paid to what magazines you read. In a burglary case, the question “have you or a loved one ever been the victim of a burglary?” is of more import than “what was your SAT score?” The voir dire process isn’t even long enough to appreciably evaluate your intelligence, unless you’re the sort who makes it clear the second you open your mouth.
Lawyers want people who will be sympathetic to their side, or at least not biased against it, who will decide the facts on the evidence. That’s it. Every question you’re being asked relates back to this. If it was really just a matter of picking the stupid, much time could be saved by throwing a handful of dimes and jelly beans in the aisles and empaneling the scramblers.
Yeah, but this particular generalization hardly seems to apply to anyone.
Whoever is determining guilt or innocence (the jury, or the judge if a defendant waives a jury) needs to be impartial. Everybody else just has to behave properly.
And no matter what you call it, the court paying the salaries of a jury - for quite a few people hundreds of dollars a day - will not lead to an impartial jury. Imagine how people could milk something like that to the court’s ruination. It’s not feasible any way you look at it.
It would be a hardship for someone who might not be able to make his/her house payment or rent because jury duty. Or face a repossession. or face the possibility of having to choose betwen rent and food. Such things may force a citizen to avail themselves of some the benefits of society. Such people are *not on an equal footing * with those whose employers pay them for jury duty. They would sacrifice much more than their time.
Granted, a lot of people who claim such hardship are weaseling and should be kicked in the butt.
And for the record, I have answered every time I have been called, and will continue to do so. Usually, I sit in the jury pool and never actually make it up to the voire dere jury box (and the last time I was called, it was before the “one day or out” policy). But we do what we can. Pehaps once again, I will serve on a jury, which according to Dex, would call my intelligence into question
Every time someone is called for duty, they face the possibility of a long, drawn out trial. But IIRC, California is not facing a shortage of possible jurors. Not in Southern California, anyway.
As someone who is frequently summoned for jury duty because the state knows that I’m too honest to lie to get out of it and doesn’t consider school to be any kind of excuse, and someone who has in the past served on a jury, I would like to thank y’all for alerting me to the fact that I am among the stupidest people on earth. Very kind of you.
That’s why I proposed tying the compensation to a rate based on the previous year’s income. For most folks there is no financal advantage that way to serving on a jury – just less of a need to dodge jury duty. I realize that such a proposal would have to be tinkered with (e.g. I see hor your point could apply to my minimum wage lower limit) as necessary to prevent jurors using it as a cash cow.
Following that logic, people should not be permitted to be compensated by their employers.
So you’d be cool with it if we surprised 'em?