Go to Jury Duty

[FlaLawyer]

Why you might want to go jury duty.

[diggingmyheelsin]

LOL, that's great, esp the part of hanging up on them.

Guess some feel they are just above the law and need to be slapped down a bit.

[jq26]

It is about time. I know people who discard their jury duty notices. They think they're above their responsibility. I always think about it like this: imagine you or a loved one was accused of something you didn't do. You'd probably want an intelligent pool of jurors. Be that intelligent juror.

[Jaknik]

Actually, the girl should not have been "made" to serve jury duty if she did not want to serve. Think: IN A FREE COUNTRY you can be "made" to serve on a jury, the penalty for not doing so, jail. How can this be a "freedom" of choice? Does the government mandate that a person vote, that if the person chooses not to register to vote, and vote, does that person go to jail? Even the military draft is not operational, currently.

And what if it's a matter of belief or philosophy? For example, a person might view our judicial system as the place where: "Truth is incidental; justice, accidental." Should that person be forced to participate? A person may have observed that people have been wrongfully convicted by juries, or by unscrupulous prosecutors, and noted that several people have been put to death, all victims of the "jury system". And what if a person has no desire to be "forced" to raise a right hand and be sworn in with an oath that ends with: "....so help me, God...." especially if that person is a non believer?

The system needs some indepth changes. No mandatory serving, with the undemocratic penalty of jailtime for not serving; perhaps a kinkd ofvoluntary system; or a paid, professional system, with training; the advocacy game to be eliminated and in its place a search for the TRUTH by ALL sides. No lying, no spinning, to warring expert witnesses, no throwing a bunch of **** at the blank wall to see what sticks.....no putting people on death row who are innocent. And use the technological advances in the lie detection arena, since law enforcement, the FBI, the CIA and many industries use it effectively......

[Goldbug]

:shock:

The system needs some indepth changes. No mandatory serving, with the undemocratic penalty of jailtime for not serving; perhaps a kinkd ofvoluntary system; or a paid, professional system, with training; the advocacy game to be eliminated and in its place a search for the TRUTH by ALL sides. No lying, no spinning, to warring expert witnesses, no throwing a bunch of **** at the blank wall to see what sticks.....no putting people on death row who are innocent. And use the technological advances in the lie detection arena, since law enforcement, the FBI, the CIA and many industries use it effectively......

[Jaknik]

It is about time. I know people who discard their jury duty notices. They think they're above their responsibility. I always think about it like this: imagine you or a loved one was accused of something you didn't do. You'd probably want an intelligent pool of jurors. Be that intelligent juror.

There is a whole industry that engages, for a price, in jury selection, the object to obtain people most amenable to a client's position. This could entail a variety of criteria. For example, an attorney may not want his jury "too smart", since it might mean too much analyses and since his case was weak, the dumb jury is the objective. Or it would be beneficial to salt the jury with women....or men....or certain ethnic groups....depending upon the advice of the paid jury consultants.

It's all part of the advocacy game. How can a jury be led? What can influence a jury? Emotion? Facts? Analogies? What ifs? Just consider the reality of the "paid experts," of each side. One would think an expert determinination would be the same for all of the experts in a particular field, but opposing paid guns are brought in as a matter of course. Something's wrong.

[jq26]

Its the least imperfect system in the world. In other words, these systems are all inherently flawed. The legal system, and more specifically the jury system is a construct that minimizes these inevitable flaws. It is only WRONG if you compare it to some utopian legal system that doesn't exist on this planet.

With all of its flaws and inefficiencies, it works about as well as it could. And I do beg to differ with you about jury duty. There are many reasons why all should participate. Legitimacy of the system and fairness to all parties (primarily criminal defendants) come to mind.

[Amerikaner83]

/me agrees with JQ.

I had been selected for jury duty at the end of this month, and the only reason I respectfully declined was due to my upcoming out of country vacation. As it turns out, I will not be a resident of that county anyhow, due to my purchasing a house in the neighboring county. But I anticipate being called in my new county. It's one of the rights and responsibilities of being an American, as I see it.

[Guest usctrojanalum]

I want to be apart of a jury, just so I can nullify. I don't care if they guy is as guilty as sin.

[jq26]

It's one of the rights and responsibilities of being an American, as I see it.

I agree Amerikaner. Although as of 2009 I am now exempt for jury duty for life as a member of the state bar.

[Jaknik]

Its the least imperfect system in the world. In other words, these systems are all inherently flawed. The legal system, and more specifically the jury system is a construct that minimizes these inevitable flaws. It is only WRONG if you compare it to some utopian legal system that doesn't exist on this planet.

With all of its flaws and inefficiencies, it works about as well as it could. And I do beg to differ with you about jury duty. There are many reasons why all should participate. Legitimacy of the system and fairness to all parties (primarily criminal defendants) come to mind.

In general, the above, most of it if not all of it, is bald assertion. Tantamount to the usual hue and cry of "we're number one!" If system was truly, objectively, the best, then why wouldn't every single country on earth emulate it? Advocacy for advocacy's sake does not, necessarily, go to fairness and justice. When an advocate KNOWS his client is guilty as sin, but defends him for a price, then where is justice? Especially where is justice when the advocate knows of the guilt but seeks to throw the **** at the wall, or seeks to reach one juror that he knows or suspects is vulnerable to a tall tale, a tall tale that will create doubt in that vulnerable juror, one of the jurors picked in particular because the advocate knew there'd be a good chance to sway or to influence. This strategy, this endeavor even though knowing the client was guilty as sin. Example: did the lawyer representing Tim McVeigh know his client was guilty? While McVeigh was convicted, how many of the guilty have not been convicted due to jury manipulation? How many innocents have been convicted due to jury manipulations, advocates engaged in the mind games, in the emotional scenarios, in the what ifs, in order to grab the mind of one or two untrained mind on the jury?

Participating or not participating is not the issue. It is how a person is FORCED to participate, the penalty, jail. Should the government compel a person, againist his will. to participate in a process that the person does not wish to participate in? With jail as the end result if the person exercises his freedom of choice? That's the issue--the FORCE.

[FlaLawyer]

In general, the above, most of it if not all of it, is bald assertion. Tantamount to the usual hue and cry of "we're number one!" If system was truly, objectively, the best, then why wouldn't every single country on earth emulate it? Advocacy for advocacy's sake does not, necessarily, go to fairness and justice. When an advocate KNOWS his client is guilty as sin, but defends him for a price, then where is justice? Especially where is justice when the advocate knows of the guilt but seeks to throw the **** at the wall, or seeks to reach one juror that he knows or suspects is vulnerable to a tall tale, a tall tale that will create doubt in that vulnerable juror, one of the jurors picked in particular because the advocate knew there'd be a good chance to sway or to influence. This strategy, this endeavor even though knowing the client was guilty as sin. Example: did the lawyer representing Tim McVeigh know his client was guilty? While McVeigh was convicted, how many of the guilty have not been convicted due to jury manipulation? How many innocents have been convicted due to jury manipulations, advocates engaged in the mind games, in the emotional scenarios, in the what ifs, in order to grab the mind of one or two untrained mind on the jury?

You watch way too much television. If you hang out at the courthouse for a few months you would rarely (if ever) see a jury consultant or a powerful advocate.

Participating or not participating is not the issue. It is how a person is FORCED to participate, the penalty, jail. Should the government compel a person, againist his will. to participate in a process that the person does not wish to participate in? With jail as the end result if the person exercises his freedom of choice? That's the issue--the FORCE.

How many times have you been "forced" to serve on a jury?

Yoda just called. He wants you to stop bad mouthing the FORCE.

[Jaknik]

FlaLawyer wrote: You watch way too much television. If you hang out at the courthouse for a few months you would rarely (if ever) see a jury consultant or a powerful advocate.

-------------------------------------

As a former cop, I watched a great many courtroom situations.......whether or not there is a high profile case that can afford jury consultants is not relevant. What is germane is that it does and can happen. Also, even in the most mudane case, both sides are going to jury-shop, in order to gain as much advantage as possible. For example, a scientist, a prospective juror, a person steeped in critical thinking ability might not be the best fit for a lawyer depending upon hidden prejudice or emotion. It is the reality of the current status quo reliance upon untrained juries. Wouldn't it be best to "train" jurors in the areas of "law", "evidence", "critical thinking--the basics of cause/effect, compare/contrast, sequential ordering, simple listing? Why should innocence guilt be iin the hands of neophytes?

[Jaknik]

FLALawyer wrote: How many times have you been "forced" to serve on a jury?

-------------------------------

I've been called for jury duty once. I was forced.

[Jaknik]

FlaLawyer wrote: Yoda just called. He wants you to stop bad mouthing the FORCE.

--------------------------------------------------

Why not question? Why not present examples? Should a person go to jail for not wanting to serve on a jury? Should the government have this range? If so, why should they? How does that rationale fit with a free country? How can I be ordered, and marched to a certain location, to spend my precious time--yes, it's my time, my life--compelled to participate in a function that I believe to be wanting? And if I resist, I go to jail.

So far, those who've responded have not addressed any of the issues of the game played in our judicial system. Assertions of being the "best" are just that--assertions. Should an attorney fight tooth and nail, as they did in the OJ trial, to get someone off when they KNOW he is guilty? Is that "justice"? Or should the system be geared to finding out the TRUTH of what happened?

[Guest usctrojanalum]

Should a person go to jail for not wanting to serve on a jury?

Yes.

Should the government have this range?

Yes.

How does that rationale fit with a free country?

This quote makes it sound like you never read the works of Thomas Hobbs, John Locke, Alexis De Tocqueville and other great philosophers and scholars about what it actually means to be "free"

[Jaknik]

usctrojanalum

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaknik

Should a person go to jail for not wanting to serve on a jury?

Yes.

Now, tell why the nineteen year old should be presented in leg irons......yes, is too simplistic without the reasons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaknik

Should the government have this range?

Yes.

Same problem. Why should the government have this range, ot force people to serve on juries with a penalty of jail? Provide your reasons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaknik

How does that rationale fit with a free country?

This quote makes it sound like you never read the works of Thomas Hobbs, John Locke, Alexis De Tocqueville and other great philosophers and scholars about what it actaully means to be "free"

"Freedom" is not a cut and dried item, such as one man's truth is not, necessarily, another man's truth. When you explain, rather than assert your "yeses", then we can see where you're from and where it goes.....

Edited May 3, 2010 by Jaknik

[Jaknik]

Another thought: Since serving jury duty is such a patriotic, citizens' duty, then why is it mandated (forced)? After all, shouldn't people flock to this duty? But they don't. A goodly percentage have heart failures (hyperbole) when they are summoned to jury duty. First thing that comes to mind for many is how to get out of this citizens' duty. Age? That can work if 65 or over. And a good doctor's note will get them out. Undue hardship or disruption can work, too, but it's a bit dicey to get the story straight. Sometimes just lying will work.

Looking at a similar "civic duty", that of voting. Isn't voting a patriotic thing to do? Isn't voting vital to our democracy? Isn't voting a citizen's duty? But, unlike mandatory jury duty, there is NO law that requires a person to vote. No vote, no jail. No jury duty participation? Jail.

Perhaps a reasonable (and far better) structure would be to first, have it voluntary. Surely that could work, since SO many people consider jury duty to be a citizen's duty.

But if that didn't suffice, then create a paid, professional jury pool. Make it an occupation. Training, schooling in the points of law and procedures, lessons in listening.

America has a volunteer paid Armed Forces. Why not the same format for juries, instead of demanding a person appear on a certain date, at a certain courthouse, swear an oath he or she may not be comfortable with, or else go to jail?

[FlaLawyer]

In Florida only people over 18 with drivers licenses or ID cards get placed in the jury service pool. So if it makes you feel better, your privilege to drive a car or have a state ID is contingent on you being subject to jury service.

[Jaknik]

In Florida only people over 18 with drivers licenses or ID cards get placed in the jury service pool. So if it makes you feel better, your privilege to drive a car or have a state ID is contingent on you being subject to jury service.

I'm not feeling poorly.

I'm not sure how this justifies or explains the problem of jailing a nineteen year old, leg irons, to boot, for failing to respond to a jury summons. Had we read about this story, and the country of origin had been, for example, Cuba, most of us, including the people here who have asserted rather than explained, would have been shaking our collective heads and lambasting the tolitarian-styled regime who would have had such a dragonian and humiliating method of having citizens perform their "civic" duty. Arrest, jail, handcuffs, leg irons. Boy, that'll show that recalcitrant youngster!!

[Guest usctrojanalum]

The court did not make an example of her just because she simply "failed to respond to a jury summons." There were aggravating factors. Basically the judge got pissed off at her b/c she was a ____________ <------ enter any adjective you please there.

[Jaknik]

The court did not make an example of her just because she simply "failed to respond to a jury summons." There were aggravating factors. Basically the judge got pissed off at her b/c she was a ____________ <------ enter any adjective you please there.

So he made her an "example", thereby putting "fear" into all who might have a problem serving jury duty at the whim of government. This example, a girl not yet 21, arrested, clown-suited, shackled. An ORDER to SERVE regardless of the ramifications, circumstances, beliefs, hardships, intrusion. Just do it, the government says, or go to jail.

What about a volunteer program?

What about a training program, in order to insure a far better process?

What about professional jurists?

On any typical court day in a big city, several hundred people will be summoned. They will be pooled in a large holding area, the oath administered en masse, swearing to tell the truth so help them God, whether or not they believe in a god or another kind of god. Then, they are placed in groups, the composite numbering anywhere from 30 +, and taken to individual courtrooms to be screened by the presiding judge, defense and prosecution. A public interviewing ensues. Then a break, or a wait in the hallway....."hurry up and wait" is the norm.

Then a "few" are selected from each pool. The rest are either instructed to return to the main staging area, or, are dismissed. Hundreds of people will not serve, since they were not of the "chosen". Hundreds of people whose lives have been disrupted, inconvenienced in a variety of ways, some costly, not only in monetary terms but human terms, as well. A one-car family saw the middle-aged mother have to get up at the crack of dawn in order to be at the courthouse by 8:AM, transferring from city bus to city bus, three hours or more. After not being selected, the same person having to wind her way back on city buses in rush hour traffic.

There are those who will be called for jury duty more than just once, or twice, or thrice in their lifetimes. And plenty of them will be people who would NEVER make it through the screening process, but yet they will be required to put their lives on hold, to bear the costs of appearing for what the government has determined a "civic" duty.

Does a "civic duty" lose its luster if jail is the penalty?

Edited May 5, 2010 by Jaknik

[Guest usctrojanalum]

An ORDER to SERVE regardless of the ramifications, circumstances, beliefs, hardships, intrusion. Just do it, the government says, or go to jail.

Wrong. Did you read the article linked in the OP? She basically told the Judge FOAD to his face.

[Jaknik]

Wrong. Did you read the article linked in the OP? She basically told the Judge FOAD to his face.

Here's the article. You seem to take some liberty with interpretation vs literal.

A 19 year old pre-nursing student decided not to go to federal jury duty. When she did not appear, the clerk called her. She told the clerk she had a flat tire and would rather go to class. The judge then ordered that she show cause for her failure to appear. What was the student’s response? She hung up on the clerks. Enter the U.S. Marshalls service.

The Houston Chronicle reports the student’s court appearance as follows:

“Kelsey Gloston stood in ankle and wrist restraints in court Tuesday afternoon wearing flip flops, a tight white T-shirt, short-shorts and sporting green streaks in her hair. Though she rolled her eyes and looked impatient while waiting for the judge, once U.S. District Judge David Hittner took the bench her tears flowed.”

--------------------------

So, she "basically told the judge FOAD" to his face? Surely you jest. She was ARRESTED, brought in manacled head to foot, and subsequently broke down into tears. That'll show her, won't it? What a good object lesson in democracy! Again, had we read about this as a story in Cuba, we'd be lambasting Castro. But since it happened "here", then it must be ok, right?

[Amerikaner83]

Hanging up on the court clerk is pretty much foad as far as I see it.

You know... Our system is not perfect. That young woman learned to respect the system after that. It's like grow up. Seriously. Hell... I'm just 27 but I stopped thumbing my nose at the law when I finally realised that no the world does not revolve around me and what I want and deem important. Tough luck sweetheart... You're only 19 and would rather go to class. You ain't the only one. Grow up and deal with it. Geez