Jury Duty

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Tiassa, May 8, 2006.

  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,875
    I spent this morning awaiting my draw in a jury pool for the county court system. One would not think three hours spent trying and failing to stay awake would prove particularly enlightening, but then again, it's me. So I found certain thing fascinating.

    The "orientation" video, called We, the People, might as well have been called Jury Duty 101: Q&A for Boneheads. Perhaps I'm being too harsh there, but there was nothing about the presentation that informed, enlightened, or otherwise augmented my perception of the process. To the other, someone failed to realize that the video is subtitled; the closed-caption boxes laid over the subtitles, and the transcription was atrocious. One might be tempted to think that this is the first time they ever ran that video, but nope ....

    There was much talk, however, both in the video presentation and the short remarks by a superior court judge, about "democracy", and our valuable contribution to democratic government by serving our duty. Considering the general reaction to my notice--"Ignore it," or "F@ck 'em"--maybe this sort of powdery encouragement is necessary.

    But I find the prospect fascinating; having narrowly escaped going to trial last year, I have the opportunity to witness the judicial process from another perspective. And while I certainly have better things I could be doing with my time, it's not so bad. I'm on a two-hour break before voir dire.

    So tell me what you think: Is jury duty a "colossal waste of time", as the judge recalled of one juror response questionnaire? Or merely an inconvenience worthy of no more than apathy?

    Or are we really upholding a pillar of vaunted democracy?

    Justice? Or BS? You make the call.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,875
    Struck on peremptory challenge by prosecutor. I'd speculate as to why, but I don't want to sound smug. Needless to say, I couldn't be happier. If I go all my days of service being struck peremptorily by prosecutors, I will have enjoyed the experience. I had muttered, as my term approached, that I was a prosecutor's worst nightmare. Today was a step toward proving that point.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. vslayer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,969
    juries can be swayed too easily, in order to get a fair trial they must be tried before a judge.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,467
    And judges are likely to have one bias or another.
    Perhaps one they do not even know they have.

    Jury duty is an unpleasant necessity of modern civilization. Put it in the same class as taxes or drivers licence registration.
     
  8. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,083
    I'm glad that in Europe we don't have jury in most if not all countries. That makes court proceedings more professional and serious, i.e., not an emotional circus show to manipulate the jury.
    Of course, lawyers still do stunts, but they are legal stunts.

    Besides judges can do more competent verdicts according to law and legal theory.
     
  9. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    It is said that in America cases are tried exclusively by citizens who are too stupid to find a way to evade jury duty. That's scary.

    I've served on three juries, one civil and two criminal trials. I was the foreman on one. In each case I felt that I helped ensure that justice was done, or at least that an injustice was not.
     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,383
    Depends what kind of case it was. If it was criminal, and you looked too educated, for instance, that might have been a problem.
     
  11. thedevilsreject Registered Senior Abuser Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,812
    but is it not easy to sway one man ie. the judge than 12 people
     
  12. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,083
    No. Judge is a professional with the highest legal education, he understands the law. And, dare I say, in most cases is more intelligent than the average jury.
     
  13. john smith Tongue in cheek Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    833
    just like James R!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,875
    It was criminal; the defendant was charged with two counts of "bail-jumping" (yes, that's the legal term for it in Snohomish County, Washington). I was the only long-haired male on the panel of 30, wore a green rayon shirt and white pants; perhaps it was mere appearance, as one of my friends suggests. (He called me a hippie, and stopped short of describing my appearance as gay.)

    But this was another of those experiences, somewhat akin to the Wal-Mart disaster I mentioned a few weeks back in another topic; I was nearly shocked by the jury-selection process. I had expected questions relevant to ... well, I don't know how to not sound arrogant on this one. It was pabulum. Very general, very simple. And of the 30, I can easily presume that I was the only unemployed and not retired person in the bunch; the rest of these folks had plenty of association with what we call the real world. And yet their understanding of why they were there and what they were expected to do ... should I invoke Eunice Stone here? Stage fright? Is that what stunted their answers and made them sound stupid? The most "intelligent" thing I had cause to say during the selection questioning came in response to the question (by the prosecutor), "What is the defense attorney's job?" I said that a fundamental part of a defender's job was to ensure that his client's rights, as afforded by the state and federal constitutions, were observed and respected throughout the process.

    There was one man, a doctor of some sort, whose children had gotten involved with drugs, and had filled out on a questionnaire--before knowing what case he would be seated on--that he could not be fair and impartial as a juror; the judge did everything he could to work around this, but ended up dismissing him for cause.

    When asked what kind of evidence I expected to see in a trial like this one, I said documentation, including some kind of acknowledgment by the defendant that he was due in court on a given day.

    In the end, it was easy to see who the defense attorney was striking; these were people who were predisposed to a presumption of guilt for various reasons. The prosecutor, however, seemed to be striking people who could answer coherently the questions put before them.

    So two blows came to my perception of society; I had presumed my neighbors much more ... capable, I guess, under such circumstances. And I am stunned at the notion that who is actually left to convict a defendant. It is disheartening in its own way. I left the courthouse gloating quietly to myself; I need not make any undue presumptions, but I know I'm a prosecutor's worst nightmare when it comes to my understanding of the burden of proof. It is hard, on the one hand, to see how I let that slip; though I would acquit for the prosecution's failure to prove a case a man I believed to be guilty, that question never came up.

    But the warm feeling of validation (pointless rejection never felt so good) is gone, and I'm left with a haunting suspicion about the quality and nature of our juries. The system is adequate, but much like sports, we're making it easier and easier for the offense to score because that's what people like. Arguments about defense discovery have implied that the prosecutors, who apparently go forward with facts on their side, want to custom-tailor their cases to the defense as if this were a political brawl. And now this, the recognition that prosecutors seek the least-capable of the jury pool; stay out of the system 'round here. A jury of your peers speaks poorly of both you and your peers.

    In the end, though, I don't see what's so disturbing about jury duty that people's opinion is to throw away the notice and forget about the obligation as quickly as possible. It was fascinating, and I even got to catch up on some sleep while waiting to be drawn to a pool.
     
  15. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Reasons people don't like jury duty:

    1. Most of the time statistically is spent in various stages of waiting. You can be called up three or four times before you ever actually try a case.
    2. They don't want to have that much power over a stranger's life.
    3. They don't want to have to think.
    4. They're afraid that if they convict someone he may have connections to a gang or a mob and they'll be tracked down and punished for it. This one is not too unrealistic. Witnesses are intimidated into not giving testimony all the time. It is not impossible to track down jurors if you have enough people working on it.
     

Share This Page