When you go in for the "interview" process, find a way to make sure the case "hits too close to home"; if it's a rape case of a teenaged girl or something and you have a sister that's pretty close to the same age (or daughter)...they pretty much shove you out the door. You just pretty much have to show you have no way to be unbiased.
Why don't you want to do it? Do you actually have a legitimate reason, or are you just lazy?
One way not to do it is the approach one guy used when I was called in: giving a long rant about how he doesn't believe in the judicial system or psychology (the case involved an insanity defense). Yeah, he certainly got out of jury duty, but I doubt he enjoyed what happened next when the judge asked him to stay after everyone else was leaving.
If you're a student, you can get a waiver. Otherwise, there's not much you can do unless you feel like going to jail. You're gonna have to show up unless you are literally bedridden, and I'm pretty sure they're not gonna buy that unless you have extensive documentation proving it.
Funny thing in the one trial I served on the judge gave contempt of court charges for people trying to get out of it
But then he also put the ex mayor in jail for years he was hard core
Neat coincidence, I got slapped with a Jury Duty letter on Tuesday. I'm the first person I know to have ever been called, and they couldn't have randomly-generated a worse potential juror.
The concept of jury duty does have some serious issues when you consider that people aren't likely to do a great job at something that they are being forced into doing.
TheWaspinator wrote: The concept of jury duty does have some serious issues when you consider that people aren't likely to do a great job at something that they are being forced into doing.
Unless of course they understand the purpose of it, the reason it's a part of our society, and as such, treat it with the gravity that it deserves.
Cheesecat wrote: So I got sent for jury duty, but don't really want to go any advice on getting out?
All depends on where you are and what the courts are like. When I was in San Diego for instance, if people didn't want to go, they just didn't go, because there hasn't been a single penalty issued for not showing up in San Diego County since the 1980's. Some places will accept financial hardship or travel plans or family issues as well.
TheWaspinator wrote: The concept of jury duty does have some serious issues when you consider that people aren't likely to do a great job at something that they are being forced into doing.
Unless of course they understand the purpose of it, the reason it's a part of our society, and as such, treat it with the gravity that it deserves.
Do you think there's any chance that people who make "how do I get out of this?" threads are going to treat it with the gravity it deserves if they fail to get out of it? We'd be better off letting them walk away.
TheWaspinator wrote: The concept of jury duty does have some serious issues when you consider that people aren't likely to do a great job at something that they are being forced into doing.
Unless of course they understand the purpose of it, the reason it's a part of our society, and as such, treat it with the gravity that it deserves.
Do you think there's any chance that people who make "how do I get out of this?" threads are going to treat it with the gravity it deserves if they fail to get out of it? We'd be better off letting them walk away.
Oh, no. Most likely not. But that doesn't mean that people can't be made to do something and still do a good job of it.
You would be surprised how seriously a bunch of ordinary people take their jury service. I've been on a jury and I was impressed by how this randomly selected bunch of plebs worked together with all their strengths and weaknesses to come to a just verdict.
It really is the last bulwark of justice in the Anglo-Saxon socio-political-legal system. It is the main place where you as a typical citizen and representative of ordinary people, can make an individual contribution to the proper workings of our society. Unlike voting, where you are irrelevant unless you are one of the 5% of swing voters in marginal constituencies.
If you don't want to go, and you end up having to go, I hope you will buckle down and do your best.
From the hacky, unfunny overplayed 'jokes' in US tv and films it seems like Jury Service is considered on par with root canal.
I did it in the UK a few years back - for a pretty big trial in the top court. Overall it was pretty interesting, even if it did go on and on and on and on. The hours were pretty short (10am to 4pm max, with plenty of days which finished early.
We were specifically told during the induction not to try and weasel out using the 'Oh, I'm massively biased against *insert group here* excuse. As other posters have mentioned, you get a bad tempered judge and you might end up with a contempt of court for your trouble.
Yeah do not try to get out of it unless you have a good reason. They've heard every excuse you can imagine and they don't joke around. It's a civil duty for a reason, just like signing up for the draft or paying taxes.
If they find out you've lied to get out of it, they will make you pay one way or another. This is a system entirely built upon catching people who are lying to get out of something. Don't even bother unless you have a serious excuse (for America, financial hardships due to lost wages because we get paid $12.50 a day, illness, or extreme inconvenience) for example, the last I time I got excused I had a job in Minnesota that started the week I was supposed to start jury duty in Kentucky. Explained to the judge that that would almost certainly cause me to be "let go" due to missing training and he let me off.
I'm still waiting to hear back from this recent one, I sent the letter back a bit late, on top of the fact that it had to be forwarded over a thousand miles, so who knows what'll happen. Thankfully I'm apparently signed up to a tiny district and the judge is very understanding if he sees youre not BSing him.
That being said, if they said that they were just going to make me do it next time I'm back in the area, I'd do it. I wouldn't like doing it more than likely, and it would be very inconvenient, but sometimes you have to act your age and do stuff you don't want to do.
I got called up 15 or so years ago and had just started a new significantly improved job - I was literally two weeks in. I wrote a letter to that effect and asked that my jury service put off for 6month/a year (not cancelled) and they were happy with that.
Vitali Advenil wrote: If you're a student, you can get a waiver. Otherwise, there's not much you can do unless you feel like going to jail. You're gonna have to show up unless you are literally bedridden, and I'm pretty sure they're not gonna buy that unless you have extensive documentation proving it.
In the US there are various waivers and extensions. As there is no chance I will be on a jury I just keep extending, and then ignore it.
Canada however is a different country. Look up extensions and waivers in your home district/province/town rad filled partyzone.
I have only been called once and probably will only ever be called that one time. I told the judge that having the defendant swear on the bible to tell the truth was pretty much the equivalence of swearing to tell the truth on a roll of toilet paper or a stack of phone books.
I also felt it was a waste of everyone's time and taxpayer's money to be paying for a translator for someone in the country illegally and that it would also save tax payers in the end if we just deported them.
I've been called twice. First time the letter was sent to an old address, and I never showed. Second time we were asked if we knew anyone involved in the case. One older lady saw a picture of the detective, and yelled "I know him, he's a fething nazi"! The whole room was dismissed and the judge was pretty pissed about it.
Second time we were asked if we knew anyone involved in the case. One older lady saw a picture of the detective, and yelled "I know him, he's a fething nazi"! The whole room was dismissed and the judge was pretty pissed about it.
I'll have to remember that trick.
Having used jury consultants, I have a MUCH less positive view of jury trials.In our personal case, we were in a bidding war with the defense to get one particular jury consultant. Jury consultants naturally believe that they decide the case before it starts, based on the jurors picked alone. As we were going through it we reviewed why each juror was good or bad (and to what level) for our case and whether they fit well with our strategy (and how to modify the strategy for each juror actually picked). It was all about personalities. Thats when I decided that the death penalty was a horrifically bad idea, if its decided like this.
efarrer wrote: Do your duty.
Show up.
Spend the afternoon with the other potential jurors and go home when you find out you aren't needed.
Of the 4 times I've been called in, this happened 3 of them.
When a defendant walks into a court room during the jury selection process and sees 30-80 annoyed jurors, they sometimes decide to plea. Same with civil cases and settling.
I don't know how the Canadian courts work, but for one of the times I was not picked as a juror I had these questions (paraphrased, and 10-15 years ago):
Question: If this is the third time this defendant will have been convicted of possession with the intent to distribute, would you give him the maximum sentence of 12 years.
Answer from me: Yes.
Question: If the case comes down to the defendant's word versus a policeman's word, would you convict this defendant?
Answer from me: No. Never.
I'm not sure which question got me kicked off, or both. However, they were honest answers that both sides needed to know. Yes, I'm willing to send someone to jail for a long time for what I consider a major crime. No, I won't do it on a case of he said, she said, even if one person is the pope himself. Do your fething job and collect evidence.
You would be surprised how seriously a bunch of ordinary people take their jury service. I've been on a jury and I was impressed by how this randomly selected bunch of plebs worked together with all their strengths and weaknesses to come to a just verdict.
I had a similar experience. The one time I was selected as a juror, it was 3 days of trial, 1 day of deliberation (conviction), and 1 day of assigning punishment.
It was grueling and tough, but everyone on that jury had a completely different background, education, etc. I learned a lot, but I won't say that I enjoyed it. We did our job, though.
efarrer wrote: Do your duty.
Show up.
Spend the afternoon with the other potential jurors and go home when you find out you aren't needed.
Of the 4 times I've been called in, this happened 3 of them.
When a defendant walks into a court room during the jury selection process and sees 30-80 annoyed jurors, they sometimes decide to plea. Same with civil cases and settling.
I don't know how the Canadian courts work, but for one of the times I was not picked as a juror I had these questions (paraphrased, and 10-15 years ago):
Question: If this is the third time this defendant will have been convicted of possession with the intent to distribute, would you give him the maximum sentence of 12 years.
Answer from me: Yes.
Question: If the case comes down to the defendant's word versus a policeman's word, would you convict this defendant?
Answer from me: No. Never.
I'm not sure which question got me kicked off, or both. However, they were honest answers that both sides needed to know. Yes, I'm willing to send someone to jail for a long time for what I consider a major crime. No, I won't do it on a case of he said, she said, even if one person is the pope himself. Do your fething job and collect evidence.
It was the second one. Testimony *is* evidence. Sometimes the only evidence! (If a police officer pulls someone over for running a red light, sees they have a warrant, arrests them and finds a bag of coke in their pocket, what other evidence would you demand to prove possession?) If you will not even consider it, you are not following the law, so it is a strike for cause. Likewise, all witness start out the same. You can't give bonus points (or penalties) to anyone just based on job, title, being (or not being) the defendant, etc. You can use their training, experience, prior untruthfulness, etc. to weigh credibility, but you don't know any of that until they testify. Anything else is an improper assumption.
If the ONLY evidence is "I saw him do X" and "No, I didn't do X", then you're going to have a hard time getting me to send anyone to jail. And as a Prosecutor, you should be thankful for my honesty.
Do you have the drugs you said he had? No?
Do you have photographic or other evidence that the drugs even existed? No?
kronk wrote: If the ONLY evidence is "I saw him do X" and "No, I didn't do X", then you're going to have a hard time getting me to send anyone to jail. And as a Prosecutor, you should be thankful for my honesty.
Do you have the drugs you said he had? No?
Do you have photographic or other evidence that the drugs even existed? No?
You just saw him toss "something" in the river?
"Not guilty. When is lunch?"
This is why trial lawyers hate actually doing trials. The jury is not there to determine if the defendant goes to jail or not. The jury is there to determine guilty or not guilty. The judge determines if a sentence of incarceration is necessary. It has gotten so bad that if it isn't on video it didn't really happen in most peoples' minds. But when it is captured on video we have motion hearings to exclude the video because the defense doesn't want the jury to see the truth of what happened, regardless of if their rights were infringed upon or not.
Most jurors don't want to be there, and will return a verdict of guilty quickly just to get out of there quickly or the opposite, especially in victimless crimes. Every trial attorney has a case where the jury came back and kicked them squarely in the nuts. Mine was a DUI where a guy passed out on a highway in the opposite lane with his foot on the brake. He admitted to drinking, and refused the blow. All caught on video. The defense attorney did such a horrible job during cross examination of the officer a juror fell asleep. Not guilty. The bailiff came up to me after the verdict and was more p!ssed than me. Those guys have seen so much they can usually call it. The verdict came in right before the end of the day when the judge would have told them they'd have to come back. Next DUI trial I had a girl who just barely rolled a stop sign. Guilty. I had two people on my jury that had DUI convictions. I have no idea how I won. Our system is a major crap shoot.
This is why trial lawyers hate actually doing trials. The jury is not there to determine if the defendant goes to jail or not. The jury is there to determine guilty or not guilty. The judge determines if a sentence of incarceration is necessary
This is absolutely not always true. In the trial I served as a Juror, we set the sentence. as well.
This is why trial lawyers hate actually doing trials. The jury is not there to determine if the defendant goes to jail or not. The jury is there to determine guilty or not guilty. The judge determines if a sentence of incarceration is necessary
This is absolutely not always true. In the trial I served as a Juror, we set the sentence. as well.
Apologies. Let me clarify. In Illinois the jury does not decide the sentence in a criminal trial. That is a matter for a judge at a sentencing hearing. As for other states I have no idea.
kronk wrote: If the ONLY evidence is "I saw him do X" and "No, I didn't do X", then you're going to have a hard time getting me to send anyone to jail. And as a Prosecutor, you should be thankful for my honesty.
Do you have the drugs you said he had? No?
Do you have photographic or other evidence that the drugs even existed? No?
You just saw him toss "something" in the river?
"Not guilty. When is lunch?"
Yep, the State should have been very appreciative that you were honest! There is no wrong answer, after all. I was just answering the question of which question got you struck. I would point out that in Texas, not having the drugs is a major issue because the State also has to prove that they were actually illegal drugs. Tests sometimes show that while the Defendant thought he had bought cocaine, for example, he was actually ripped of and it's all lidocaine and sheetrock dust.
Yeah, in Texas the Defendant gets to pick who sentences- judge or jury, but has to pick prior to trial starting.
It might depend on the severity of the crime/trial, the number of people available (Houston versus backwater Texas), how many cases are actually on the list for jury selection that day, etc.
I was in a room in Houston with 250 of my closest friends, where people were drawn out in groups of 20-50. I was also in a Galveston County courthouse where there were just 50 of us, and only one group of about 20 were pulled.
I'm sure there is some sort of system, but I'm not an accountant!
This is why trial lawyers hate actually doing trials. The jury is not there to determine if the defendant goes to jail or not. The jury is there to determine guilty or not guilty. The judge determines if a sentence of incarceration is necessary
This is absolutely not always true. In the trial I served as a Juror, we set the sentence. as well.
Depends on the jurisdiction.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kronk wrote: It was Texas. We like to do our own hangings, thank you!
Thats why they give all the jurors a rope when they start voir dire. If you can finish a hangman's noose without direction, you're automatically on the jury.
I only ever got called once, well twice but the 2nd time didn't count. I got the letter, but 2 days later I moved out of the county, and they said I could disregard it.
My uncle who's a lawyer says he never, ever had jury duty. He gets the letters all the time, and just ignores it and doesn't show up. I always thought you could get arrested for that, but he says no.
Necros wrote: I only ever got called once, well twice but the 2nd time didn't count. I got the letter, but 2 days later I moved out of the county, and they said I could disregard it.
My uncle who's a lawyer says he never, ever had jury duty. He gets the letters all the time, and just ignores it and doesn't show up. I always thought you could get arrested for that, but he says no.
You can technically get a bench warrant out, but its never done. They can't prove receipt.
Almost never... it depends on a lot of factors. Most judges will dismiss anybody working the legal field, and most parties will use a preemptory challenge on one, but sometimes a judge will allow lawyer with no potential conflict to be seated, and parties run out of challenges.
My Criminal Law professor knew a federal judge that was seated in Ohio Common pleas.
I did jury duty before going to law school, it was fascinating. Juries definitely do better work for criminal cases than civil.
I've served jury duty once. The lady next to me during jury selection says she never gets chosen because she once worked for a law firm. Lawyers pull her because they don't want her second guessing them. Makes sense
Swan-of-War wrote: I've served jury duty once. The lady next to me during jury selection says she never gets chosen because she once worked for a law firm. Lawyers pull her because they don't want her second guessing them. Makes sense
Yeah. I have a few relatives who are lawyers, one of which is a prosecutor. They tend to not want people with a lot of legal understandings as it can make things harder to argue a case.
I've been called once, and even though I'm a student, it was summer so I chose to go. I find the legal system fascinating, and was actually pretty eager to be there. I wasn't selected, and talking to my relatives, I was told that being happy to be there tends to set off flags for some lawyers, as I would probably pay more attention to the case.
I was called a few years ago, and NH likes to add insult to injury. You have to report on three separate dates and are eligible for all cases being heard in the two weeks following the report dates.
My name got pulled three times. First one, I heard a day of testimony, then realized I knew a witness in the case by face, but not name (they read everyone involved before hand). I got bounced and thanked.
Second one I got pulled for I knew the defense attorney, which was enough to get me cleared.
The last case I showed up for and heard about an hour of testimony before the jury was excused. Prosecution was over-reaching by going for a distribution charge as opposed to a possession charge. Judge came in and told us he had dismissed the case due to lack of evidence.
I doubt your locality is similar to NH, but just keep in mind, unless you catch a capital case, you're losing a week or two at the extreme.
Things I saw other people get excused for: being handicapped, being a mechanic for police vehicles, being married to a cop, being a victim of a crime, being a perpetrator of a crime, being violently ill (though they made her come back at a later date). YMMV
There is one phrase that will get you out of jury duty no matter what 'Jury Nullification'. It is such a hairy topic that no court will touch you with a 10m pole.
Well, given that the jury nullification nuts tend to right up there with the sovereign folks, they are usually a pain to deal with since they like to emphatically spout terms with no real understanding of the meaning. Then they start trying to "educate" (read harass) potential or actual jurors, get hit with tampering/intimidation/etc. and it gets messy.
I've been sent a card like this once but although it was sent to my current address in it with the rest of my personal information they had my old mailing address (different city) so I just checked the box "I can't be on the Jury", in the comments explained that they had the wrong information and sent it back. I haven't seen any repercussions.
This reminds me of the quote "Juries are full of people so stupid they couldnt find a way out of jury duty"
My mom got out of being on a jury for a molestation case by saying she disagrees with using the actual technical terms for genitalia infront of a little girl.
That's not really what I'm talking about, what that guy did was influencing people that could very well have already been put on a jury, which is (rightly so) a crime. I was merely saying that when you give a reason as to why you can't be put on the jury, you state the knowledge of jury nullifcation. Or if they ask a question like "Is there anything other than the facts that would change your determination of guilt?" You answer yes.
That being said the article mentions that jury nullification is a right, is that actually the case in the U.S. or is it just the article paraphrasing the man's beliefs?
Krellnus wrote: That being said the article mentions that jury nullification is a right, is that actually the case in the U.S. or is it just the article paraphrasing the man's beliefs?
It isn't explicitly a right, but the jury can return any verdict it wants for any reason it wants and all you can do about it is attempt to appeal. Jurry nullification is just a fancy term for "the jury returns a 'not guilty' verdict even though I really think they should have returned 'guilty' instead".
Krellnus wrote: That being said the article mentions that jury nullification is a right, is that actually the case in the U.S. or is it just the article paraphrasing the man's beliefs?
It isn't explicitly a right, but the jury can return any verdict it wants for any reason it wants and all you can do about it is attempt to appeal. Jurry nullification is just a fancy term for "the jury returns a 'not guilty' verdict even though I really think they should have returned 'guilty' instead".
This I know, as nullification is ultimately the price we pay for judicial system that is as fair as possible, now I know most countries have laws preventing the punishment of jurors for the return of a 'wrong' verdict, perhaps I should have phrased my question as "In the United States is Jury Nullification specifically called out or does it just come under the usual 'can't punish jurors for wrong verdicts'?
Steve steveson wrote: Surely jury nullification is a fundamental part of any common law system?
Not really. Jury Nullification is an unavoidable consequence of having a finder of fact distinct from the judge. The jury doesn't have a right to nullify, there is just no way to stop it.
There's popular support for it, but jury nullification isn't allowed under any statute or case law. Now, part of that is a prosecutor can't appeal a finding of fact, only a findings of law, so there's just no relief possible. If 12 people in a jury say that the person didn't commit the crime, there simply isn't any recourse.
Ouze wrote: Still trying to get out of it, or are you going to do the right thing and perform your civic duty?
I'm confirmed for going as I can't really get out (not over 65, don't have military or legal background, no criminal record, not in school, etc) but there's still a screening process where they go through a series of questions, so I might be able to get out of that by not sounding qualified to be a jury
member.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: I just tell them that I'm deaf... (wears powerful hearing aids in both ear)
My disability lets me get out of many things.
I think they have accommodations for people with hearing disabilities.
Cheesecat wrote: I think they have accommodations for people with hearing disabilities.
I can't speak to Canada but in my experience, I've been on jury duty at least 4 times and I really didn't see any accommodation for deaf jurors. I think it's likely in federal court, because they have electronic microphones anyway but the state trials I've been on it was the volume of the person speaking.
However it's totally possible that deaf jurors are accommodated be pre-planning - you fill out a survey here before you appear - so there simply were no deaf people there when I was there. Perhaps if you indicate you are deaf on the survey they work with you to get hearing assistance or a signer or what have you, as I presume the ADA requires accommodation.
In the US they pull it from drivers license registration I believe, and they filter it out for X years last served - for example, in Iowa you can't get called more than once every 3 years or some such.
Ouze wrote: In the US they pull it from drivers license registration I believe, and they filter it out for X years last served - for example, in Iowa you can't get called more than once every 3 years or some such.
I have no idea, I have never been called for Jury Duty and I don't think my parents have either.
I heard you had to own a home to be called for that, which explains why we, and I weren't.
We get letters, which you must respond to. I think you get a summons if you don't respond to it which means you could conceivably be arrested at a traffic stop.
Ouze wrote: In the US they pull it from drivers license registration I believe, and they filter it out for X years last served - for example, in Iowa you can't get called more than once every 3 years or some such.
Ouze wrote: In the US they pull it from drivers license registration I believe, and they filter it out for X years last served - for example, in Iowa you can't get called more than once every 3 years or some such.
Presumably for lying to the court. Obviously, it’d be fine for you Frazz, as you actually do hate everyone. Except dogs, but they rarely end up in jury trials.
Ouze wrote: In the US they pull it from drivers license registration I believe, and they filter it out for X years last served - for example, in Iowa you can't get called more than once every 3 years or some such.
Presumably for lying to the court. Obviously, it’d be fine for you Frazz, as you actually do hate everyone. Except dogs, but they rarely end up in jury trials.
I don’t think that’s going to end well. One of two things is going to happen:
You fail to convince the court that you are telling the truth, and thus, contempt.
You do convince them that you legitimately hate everyone and are a racist. While they might not toss you in jail right there, welcome to all sorts of watch lists.
Pistols at Dawn wrote: From the hacky, unfunny overplayed 'jokes' in US tv and films it seems like Jury Service is considered on par with root canal.
We were specifically told during the induction not to try and weasel out using the 'Oh, I'm massively biased against *insert group here* excuse.
The issue is that it's a huge time sink that is basically unpaid. Conscript labor, if you will.
You can try that excuse. And it becomes part of the public record. Which means you probably lose your job, because nobody in HR is going to let an open racist work at their company.
Yeah, jury duty is serious business. While odds are you won't get picked for duty, consider that you could sit on a case that determines whether someone spends the rest of their life in prison. Needless to say, the judges, lawyers, court staff, etc. do not find it funny for people to try to shirk what amounts to a pretty simple task- listen and make a decision.
OTOH, courts are usually sympathetic to legitimate issues such as having to care for a disabled relative, sick children, prior nonrefundable airline tickets, etc. Because some people have actual issues rather than not wanting to be inconvenienced for a day or two.
jmurph wrote: Yeah, jury duty is serious business. While odds are you won't get picked for duty, consider that you could sit on a case that determines whether someone spends the rest of their life in prison. Needless to say, the judges, lawyers, court staff, etc. do not find it funny for people to try to shirk what amounts to a pretty simple task- listen and make a decision.
OTOH, courts are usually sympathetic to legitimate issues such as having to care for a disabled relative, sick children, prior nonrefundable airline tickets, etc. Because some people have actual issues rather than not wanting to be inconvenienced for a day or two.
This. Getting out of it cause you "don't want to do it" is a pretty cheese ball thing to do. Society doesn't ask a lot back from you all things considered.
Part of me hopes I get rejected because of my anxiety. Whilst it might be a cool experience, I don't like the idea of having to debate how a real person spends their next few years with a room full of random strangers potentially for many hours over a number of consecutive days. For me, that's one huge recipe for disaster. It's almost like they tailored it to be one of the worst possible environments for someone suffering anxiety to be in.
jmurph wrote: Yeah, jury duty is serious business. While odds are you won't get picked for duty, consider that you could sit on a case that determines whether someone spends the rest of their life in prison. Needless to say, the judges, lawyers, court staff, etc. do not find it funny for people to try to shirk what amounts to a pretty simple task- listen and make a decision.
OTOH, courts are usually sympathetic to legitimate issues such as having to care for a disabled relative, sick children, prior nonrefundable airline tickets, etc. Because some people have actual issues rather than not wanting to be inconvenienced for a day or two.
This. Getting out of it cause you "don't want to do it" is a pretty cheese ball thing to do. Society doesn't ask a lot back from you all things considered.
Speak for yourself. I have a nice hole in my paycheck every month, and "society" seems to be in a never ending race with itself to find new ways to tell me what to do. Now its even trying to tell me what to do in the restroom.
Part of me hopes I get rejected because of my anxiety. Whilst it might be a cool experience, I don't like the idea of having to debate how a real person spends their next few years with a room full of random strangers potentially for many hours over a number of consecutive days. For me, that's one huge recipe for disaster. It's almost like they tailored it to be one of the worst possible environments for someone suffering anxiety to be in.
Most trials are not nearly so life changing. On the positive, in most criminal cases, its really clear whether the defendant did it or not. Most civil cases are insurance/PI cases. You'll get a nice dose of hatred for all lawyers after.
jmurph wrote: Yeah, jury duty is serious business. While odds are you won't get picked for duty, consider that you could sit on a case that determines whether someone spends the rest of their life in prison. Needless to say, the judges, lawyers, court staff, etc. do not find it funny for people to try to shirk what amounts to a pretty simple task- listen and make a decision.
OTOH, courts are usually sympathetic to legitimate issues such as having to care for a disabled relative, sick children, prior nonrefundable airline tickets, etc. Because some people have actual issues rather than not wanting to be inconvenienced for a day or two.
This. Getting out of it cause you "don't want to do it" is a pretty cheese ball thing to do. Society doesn't ask a lot back from you all things considered.
Speak for yourself. I have a nice hole in my paycheck every month, and "society" seems to be in a never ending race with itself to find new ways to tell me what to do. Now its even trying to tell me what to do in the restroom.
And our Canadian brethren get an even bigger chunk taken out. But, as Hotsauceman pointed out earlier, do you really want the people who may be on your jury one day to be the ones who were "to dumb to get out of it?".
Yea but Canadians get a moderately efficient medical system too.
do you really want the people who may be on your jury one day to be the ones who were "to dumb to get out of it?".
Been done that got a belt buckle. The one time I had the situation personally deciding my fate, I paid probably more than your salary to insure I had just the jury we wanted.
Frazzled wrote: Yea but Canadians get a moderately efficient medical system too.
do you really want the people who may be on your jury one day to be the ones who were "to dumb to get out of it?".
Been done that got a belt buckle. The one time I had the situation personally deciding my fate, I paid probably more than your salary to insure I had just the jury we wanted.
Yeah, well not everyone has that opportunity Frazz.
Frazzled wrote: Most trials are not nearly so life changing. On the positive, in most criminal cases, its really clear whether the defendant did it or not. Most civil cases are insurance/PI cases. You'll get a nice dose of hatred for all lawyers after.
Yeah, but all trials are important to the people involved in them even if they don't affect "society at large". And what even IS society at large, other than a collection of all of us?
No system of justice is perfect and there will always be injustices and system breakdowns here and there, but I honestly and truly believe that our legal system is on the whole fair and honest and mostly delivers justice, and I think it does so in no small part due to the men and women who show up and listen with fair minds and deliver honest verdicts - people who are full damn capable of figuring out the relatively simply process of getting out of jury duty, but who believe that they have an important role to play in safeguarding our liberties and rights, in ways small and large. Some people choose to put on a uniform and go into dangerous places for mediocre pay even with better options because someone has to helps keep people safe, some people have advanced degrees but choose to educate children for mediocre pay, and so on.
It won't kill you to sit in a room for a day, or a few days, and perform what is an utterly essential function in a democracy.
Frazzled wrote: Most trials are not nearly so life changing. On the positive, in most criminal cases, its really clear whether the defendant did it or not. Most civil cases are insurance/PI cases. You'll get a nice dose of hatred for all lawyers after.
Yeah, but all trials are important to the people involved in them even if they don't affect "society at large". And what even IS society at large, other than a collection of all of us?
I agree. I am just saying to our young compatriot not to to sweat that fear. I am sure he will do fine.*
*Frazzled partly is annoyed because Frazzled is always last to be picked to play juryball...
The main problem with it here in Ireland is it's handled inefficently. I got called up a few years ago. Stood in a room for about 2 hours with about 150 people, with no seats for most of us and bad air conditioning. Of those 150 if I recall about 10 or 12 were actually selected, 6 for each case. Came back the next day. Same deal. I had a back injury at the time so I went to the front desk and said I needed a seat. They didn't have one to spare so I was excused and told I could leave. The end.
Aside from the lack of seating and air the glaring thing for me was the amount of people they summoned. 50 per day would have been enough if a pool to choose from, 75 if you wanted to be spoiled for choice. Taking 150 away from a days work ffor 2 fairly run of the mill prosecutions is f-ing ridiculous.
Not at all. The last two times I could have been called were for civil cases. The most recent one, the entire time both lawyers were talking, I was thinking how both parties looked shady AF - I didn't want either of them to win based on how they presented themselves. And for what? A little bit of money... If I had been picked, I would have been pissed at being conscripted to help one rich fether give more/less money to another rich fether. Feth them both.
Except dogs, but they rarely end up in jury trials.
