How not to avoid jury duty

[August]

How incredibly selfish of this guy (and the rest of you). Perhaps y'all would prefer a system where the state judges your innocence or guilt? Because that is what you are asking for when you duck your duty as a citizen.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by August

How incredibly selfish of this guy (and the rest of you). Perhaps y'all would prefer a system where the state judges your innocence or guilt? Because that is what you are asking for when you duck your duty as a citizen.

Don't lump me in, I love jury duty. I'd be a professional juror if I could. I love all that legal stuff.

[Task Force]

Cause some bosses aint nice and that one day could get you in trouble.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Task Force

Cause some bosses aint nice and that one day could get you in trouble.

Pray that it does. Obstructing an employee from reporting for jury duty is not only a criminal act, but a ripe suit target. You could get all you lost wages back and more, and also get rid of that boss.

[Task Force]

I hope I get a a**hole as a boss... and juryduty.

Originally Posted by August

How incredibly selfish of this guy (and the rest of you). Perhaps y'all would prefer a system where the state judges your innocence or guilt? Because that is what you are asking for when you duck your duty as a citizen.

You have a good point there August. However the legal system in the US is certainly stacked against those who are presumed innocent. Not every case is of as much note as O J Simpson, and many are railroaded by the system (the Duke lacross players) because of the way prosecuters and the system is manipulated. Using the words jury nulification is but one example. Although it is the right of the jury to judge the case at hand it is also its right to judge the law under which the case is presented.

The lawyers of either side nor the judge will tell you that. So in my opinion they are already being unjust.

[August]

Originally Posted by CastleBravo

The lawyers of either side nor the judge will tell you that. So in my opinion they are already being unjust.

Maybe so CB but none of that matters compared to the evil of a system where people do not have the right to trial by jury.

Originally Posted by August

Maybe so CB but none of that matters compared to the evil of a system where people do not have the right to trial by jury.

Like I said you make a very good point August.

[Onkel Neal]

Yeah, everyone makes a big deal out of trying to get out of jury duty. I was lucky, my job continued my pay if I were to serve (never did). It should be the standard, you go to jury duty, your job still has to pay you...at least 1/2 wages. Spread that civil duty out some.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by August

Maybe so CB but none of that matters compared to the evil of a system where people do not have the right to trial by jury.

yes indeed this is a correct statement with which i think we can all agree.

however there is no argument in that the system has its imperfections and inconveniences.

Am i to lose $900 of work over a 3 day period so that i can sit on a jury for a DUI case for $15.. $14.85 of which is to be spent on lunch?

ridiculous and insulting

if you ask me the compensation should be such that you are not at a total loss professionally.

say $100 per day?

the state wonders why more people dont show up for jury duty summons

its because they can make more $ at work, even after paying the fine for not showing up they are further ahead that $5 - give me a break!

furthermore - i see little point in calling in over 500 people when you only need 12 - 24 jurors

it was explained to me that they call in so many people because there is a high no show rate.

im not buying it, i have never gone to jury selection with less than 150 other individuals... 80% of which were casually dismissed simply because of the side of the room they were sitting on.

quite a foolish childish bunch of nonsense... i once showed up at 8:00 am and sat there until 9:30 for a judge to even show up... there was whispering between the judge and secretary for a moment - the judge disappeared for about an hour... came back around 10:30 am and just arbitrarily told half the room they were dismissed.

after sitting there twiddling our thumbs for another hour or so, the rest of us left after they selected 24 individuals out of the remaining 100+ people in attendance.

there has to be a reform here

better compensation and better selection processes

for God's sake - it cost me more than $5 to drive to the county court house from where i live

[kiwi_2005]

At least he was honest about it.

[August]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

there has to be a reform here

I have to agree but it's a sad commentary on our social system that we can't afford to take time off to do the most basic of civic duties.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by August

I have to agree but it's a sad commentary on our social system that we can't afford to take time off to do the most basic of civic duties.

i figure - they are going to FORCE some poor schmuck to do it anyway - i might as well show up... but it will always piss me off to have to go sit in that big room for 3 hours while the judicial system makes a game show out of picking 12 randoms out of a room full of 230 people.

its retarded.

[Hitman]

Perhaps y'all would prefer a system where the state judges your innocence or guilt? Because that is what you are asking for when you duck your duty as a citizen.

Well in continental Europe we have had that system work for centuries and the end-results are not worser than with Jury. In fact here in Spain the percentage of judicial errors with the Jury is significantly higher than with a court of professional Judges. Spanish lawyers have here a say: "If I'm innocent let me be judged by a professional, if guilty by a Jury"

In the end it is just a political option, though I admit that I have never seen quirurgical medical operations or constructing a skyscraper by a Jury instead of a professional ...

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by August

I have to agree but it's a sad commentary on our social system that we can't afford to take time off to do the most basic of civic duties.

That is to be expected of the state. Since it typically understands neither incentive nor efficiency, the current jury selection system is not a surprise.

Imo, the real problem here is the tremendous complexity of our legal system. It is all but incomprehensible to the average person. Both of the juries I served on understood little more than the closing arguments. I read legal dictionaries for fun, I was in student court for four years, and I recently passed my roomate's online law exam, and even I didn't understand some of what was going on. Working hard for comparitively low pay and no personal material gain is a huge disincentive. Why do you think the military has trouble enlisting anyone but the most dedicated, idealistic, or foolish?

There are few people that really respect the legal industry, and with good reason. Lawyers and politicians rank about the same on the "detestability-meter" for most people. No small coincidence that most politicians are/were lawyers, nor that both are generally renowned for lying.
How curious that legislators make laws, and are also members of the industry that specializes in them

The legal industry is a natural monopoly, and a paragon of state/business collusion. It has created a real monopoly by making it's product beyond the reach of anyone who is not a part of it. Institutions have been formed that ensure this, such as the Trial Lawyers' Association and the ABA. Not intentionally, but naturally.
I'm sure you are aware of, and perhaps share, the nigh-universal disgust with many aspects of the modern legal system, in the same way that you would hate a monopoly that charged exorbitant prices for goods that you need.

In my opinion, and in the opinion of many conservatives, the best way to avoid this kind of thing is to limit/disperse the legislative power of the state. Should such a thing ever be accomplished, it would destroy the market niche for extraneous services like a complex, non-productive, and harmful legal industry.

Though I share your sense of civic duty, there is more here than that. To uphold one's civic duty means being willing to serve the public good. Is the legal industry really benefitting the public good? I think it is not, but I serve, because it is my duty(and I consider it my duty to make an effort to become proficient in legal discourse). Though that may be admirable in the eyes of a soldier like you or me, it doesn't change the fact that it is ultimately harmful.