Jury Duty??

[madanthonywayne]

It is also the case here. Most employers continue the wage in absense, while a person is on Jury duty. Mine does at a rate of 100%. The only stipulation is that I have to give my employer the government money I get from sitting on jury duty (except the cost of gas).

I'm self employed. I could sit on a jury for a day or two. But much more would really be a hardship.

You see these trials like for that producer being tried for the murder of the girl "mysteriously" shot in his house that go one for five months. Five months! What kind of people can afford to miss work for five months!

And what trial really needs to go on that long? It's absurd. How can you not present your case within a week or two, at most?

Limiting the jury pool to people who can afford to miss five months of work simply can not be the best way to achieve justice. I really think the juries should be randomly chosen with no one removed without a specific reason (like you know the defendent or plaintiff). And the damned trials need to be finished within a reasonable timeframe.

Of course, I also think, if you're found guilty of murder, you should be taken out and hanged immediately. Certainly within a month at most. So what do I know?

 

[James R]

I'm self employed. I could sit on a jury for a day or two. But much more would really be a hardship.

You see these trials like for that producer being tried for the murder of the girl "mysteriously" shot in his house that go one for five months. Five months! What kind of people can afford to miss work for five months!

If they are paid the same as normal, a lot of people probably can. There aren't that many people who are irreplaceable.

The system does tend to discriminate against having highly educated people in specialised jobs serving on long jury cases, though.

And what trial really needs to go on that long? It's absurd. How can you not present your case within a week or two, at most?

All evidence must be introduced orally. Witnesses have to be called, examined and cross-examined. A complex case may have a great many witnesses. A complex case may also have a lot of evidence that requires careful examination and explanation, especially where it requires expert interpretation.

If you were on trial for a crime, I doubt you would be pushing for your case to be dealt with in a hasty manner.

Limiting the jury pool to people who can afford to miss five months of work simply can not be the best way to achieve justice. I really think the juries should be randomly chosen with no one removed without a specific reason (like you know the defendent or plaintiff).

That's what is supposed to happen. In my experience, the court was quite tough on excusing people from jury duty. They had to have pretty good reasons not to sit.

Of course, I also think, if you're found guilty of murder, you should be taken out and hanged immediately. Certainly within a month at most. So what do I know?

Despite your complaints, you obviously have great faith in the accuracy of the justice system. You must be sure that wrongful convictions are practically non-existent.

Suffice it to say that I don't share your blind faith.

 

[superstring01]

Of course, I also think, if you're found guilty of murder, you should be taken out and hanged immediately. Certainly within a month at most. So what do I know?

Huh? How many people have been exonerated upon appeal? Let me tell you: a lot. Juries make mistakes-- that's why we have an appellate system. It may be slow and clunky-- but speeding up the process would be the exact opposite of a fix.

~String

 

[Learned Hand]

I'm self employed. I could sit on a jury for a day or two. But much more would really be a hardship.

You see these trials like for that producer being tried for the murder of the girl "mysteriously" shot in his house that go one for five months. Five months! What kind of people can afford to miss work for five months!

And what trial really needs to go on that long? It's absurd. How can you not present your case within a week or two, at most?

Limiting the jury pool to people who can afford to miss five months of work simply can not be the best way to achieve justice. I really think the juries should be randomly chosen with no one removed without a specific reason (like you know the defendent or plaintiff). And the damned trials need to be finished within a reasonable timeframe.

Of course, I also think, if you're found guilty of murder, you should be taken out and hanged immediately. Certainly within a month at most. So what do I know?

Well, when you're high profile (such as the producer), jury selection itself could take 2 weeks, as you have to screen out all those who know, read, or formed any prior opinion on the event. You need a blank screen, not those who've been spoon fed by the media. It's harder than you think to dig into the minds of prospective jurors and determine their loyalties.

I like your idea on jury selection -- random and must serve. Hardship cases should be rare, not the norm. Loss of pay from work is not a hardship unless you can show that your family will not be able to eat for the time you are providing your civil duty.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Huh? How many people have been exonerated upon appeal? Let me tell you: a lot. Juries make mistakes-- that's why we have an appellate system. It may be slow and clunky-- but speeding up the process would be the exact opposite of a fix.

Come on. Hanging them the same day may be a little quick, but currently the number one cause of death on death row is old age!

 

[Syzygys]

Hehe, I just got selected for jury duty today!!!

The best part is that I am not a citizen, so most likely I don't qualify! That tells a lot about the American administrative system, they can't even figure out if you are eligible or not, so how will they stop the terrorists??

Actually I wouldn't mind to serve if the case is interesting and no longer than 3 days. That's how much stupidity I am willing to put up with, just for the experience. The American justice system blows giant elephant dick, maybe I should tell them, if I actually make it to the court building...

Now I have to research the rights and duties of a resident...They probably used the DMV or tax records for selection...

 

[Enmos]

lol we already made a plan for her to answer with racist answers.

Yeah Ontario is a joke for this. They don't pay($40/day cnd)until day 11. Considering this would ruin her home business, you'd think they'd let her off the hook. They can be pricks though.

Problem is I am self employed and I cannot afford to miss work.
and what he said above lol

Wouldn't you get put on some watch list ?

 

[Syzygys]

I have just noticed that the summons start with "Dear Citizen". I think the government should have 2 lists of : fuckables (citizens) and non-fuckables (anybody else) so they could keep track of whom to screw with...

 

[shorty_37]

BTW: I shredded up the notice, and never heard a word from them again.

 

[MacGyver1968]

Ive been called 3 times, and have never been selected for jury...never made it out ofthe jury pool room.

I dont see how anyone can make it through a several month long trial...I got $7 a day from the State of Texas..and nothing from my employer...I guess thats why there are so many senior citizens in the pool room.

 

[cosmictraveler]

I've been called 6 times , went down to the courthouse, waited in the jury pool room , waited some more, then after 4 hours I was taken to a courtroom where I was asked many questions from the attorneys. Then I was put on one of the juries about a construction case. One time a fraud case and an accident case the last time I was chosen. Since I'm retired I don't mind doing my civic duty but because of my health problems I cannot do it any longer. True the pay isn't worth it but someone has to be there to do their duty to insure justice is administered don't they? :shrug:

 

[Syzygys]

hey, technology improves! I can actually fill it out online...Maybe I can get an instant answer...

 

[Syzygys]

True the pay isn't worth it but someone has to be there to do their duty to insure justice is administered don't they? :shrug:

I think they should have a volunteer pool. it would be probably made up mostly by elderly people, but hey, at least they would feel needed.

Also a jury should have an odd number of people 7 or 9 would do it. 12 is just plain stupid, and too many. No trial should last longer than a week, mostly criminal cases...

 

[cosmictraveler]

Also a jury should have an odd number of people 7 or 9 would do it. 12 is just plain stupid, and too many

Here we have only 6 people that are chosen since it isn't a murder trial or other capital offense. In most cases you only need 6 people especially in civil cases.

 

[Syzygys]

What if they are split 3-3? Then the justice system is screwed and wasted time and money? Making it 5 or 7 would solve this problem...

 

[Lemming]

I just got a letter in the mail today.....that they are considering me
for jury duty. I had to answer a few questions and mail it back. I was going to ignore it, until I read the 5000.00 fine for doing so. Has anybody been picked out of the blue and had to sit in on a case? If so do they compensate you or what? I mean I would lose alot of money each day. Of course there is no mention of anything just I MUST REPLY within 5 days.

i wouldn't do it, i think the legal system is wrong and corrupt

 

[Syzygys]

here is an experience I would like to try:

Testing it in let's say 100 courtcases, they would have 2 juries, 1 normal with 12 jurors and one smaller with 7. We would compare the result of the trials between the 2 jury systems, if there was a signifficant difference between the outcome or not. If there wasn't, they should change the current system and they could save shitload of money by using only 7 jurors. less citizens annoyed, and there would be no trials with undecided outcome.