7 ms·

A jury is one of those things that it's the best you have. If you can't perform and function with the juries you select, then there's bigger problems brewing in

A jury is one of those things that it's the best you have. If you can't perform and function with the juries you select, then there's bigger problems brewing in your community. I see a considerable amount of apathy towards serving in a jury. Why is it seen as such an inconvenience? I can understand if it causes financial problems, but I've seen jury dodging at all levels. When it comes down to it, if you were accused of a crime wouldn't you want people who cared on the jury? If so you must serve on the jury and must do it dutifully.

danieltillett 10y ago
Jury duty should be properly compensated. Why does everyone else in the court room get paid a real wage for doing their job except the jury?
- grkvlt 10y ago
  How do you compensate them? Based on the compensation of the attorneys, maybe, but which side - the low-paid public prosecutor or the high-powered defence attorney? If you raise compensation to a high level, then jury duty becomes attractive as a source of income for unemployed people, or as a target of scams and cons. If you simply restrict compensation to paying the jurors what they would have been paid in their usual jobs you have the problem of the temporarily unemployed but normally highly paid person. It's difficult, and the government has to strike a balance somewhere.
  - VLM 10y ago
    "then jury duty becomes attractive as a source of income for unemployed people, or as a target of scams and cons." How? Locally the system is a random lottery based on a pool of drivers license registrations. A standard mantra against voter-ID laws is that pool of poor people is highly challenged to obtain ID (which in reality is false, its just a mantra), so if anything there should be a statistical lack of unemployed people not a surplus. WRT scams and cons I guess you'd have fewer people lying about being members of the fully informed jury association or otherwise trying to avoid service, and that aversion to lie should make the system inherently fairer, so again no problem?
  - ConroyBumpus 10y ago
    I would be thrilled if the amount dispensed were at least enough to cover the parking that the courthouse charges.
  - danieltillett 10y ago
    Yes the government needs to strike a balance somewhere, but paying effectively zero is not anywhere near the right balance. Personally I would pay the jury the same as what the public defender is earning as this would make it clear to everyone how little they earn.
  - rhino369 10y ago
    You could start with minimum wage. Jurors get like 5 bucks an hour in federal court. That's absurd.
- staticautomatic 10y ago
  Remarkably, the most progressive state in terms of payment for jury duty is Arizona. On unusually long trials jurors are compensated up to several hundred dollars a day.
jackcosgrove 10y ago
It's more complicated than that. Prosecution and defense must agree on the jurors, and both sides favor emotional people. The prosecution wants lock-em-up types and the defense wants bleeding hearts. I took a criminal justice class and the lecturer said that professionals, especially scientists and engineers, are discriminated against by both sides because they think too analytically. I don't know what the attorneys gain by selecting emotional people. Maybe it makes their jobs easier as it's more about theatrics than evidence. But it's still sad.
- zeroer 10y ago
  I'm not questioning that your lecturer said that, but in any particular case, shouldn't adding scientists and engineers be zero-sum? Must it not help one side and hurt the other?
  - jackcosgrove 10y ago
    I was told defense does not like analytical types, and prosecution acquiesces because defense will simply veto that juror. Prosecution may want analytical types but can't get them, so they pick their battles elsewhere. Likewise, if a member of your family has been to jail, or is in law enforcement, you're out. Both sides have profiles of jurors that they want and don't want. After all this elimination, you're left with people whose predilections can't be guessed, in other words they're blank slates which both sides think they can sway. Choosing people interested in fact-finding could theoretically be zero-sum on a jury except that random people are not charged with crimes. In this same class, and it may be different now compared to 10 years ago, it was said that 90% of defendants plead out, and of the 10% of defendants who go to trial, 90% are convicted. Criminal justice resources are stretched thin, and it's in no one's interest to throw out a dragnet and haul in a bunch of iffy cases. This lecturer also said most pleas and convictions resulted from pretty obvious evidence. It's not Atticus Finch or Perry Mason. It's not even Night Court. If a case isn't a slam dunk, the prosecution won't bring charges. So being charged is tantamount to guilt.
    - jessaustin 10y ago
bsder 10y ago
> I see a considerable amount of apathy towards serving in a jury. Why is it seen as such an inconvenience? I can understand if it causes financial problems, but I've seen jury dodging at all levels. Because you lose a day (at least), you are not compensated, you may get tied up for an extended time if you get selected, and most of those of us on this forum would get dismissed during jury selection. So, it's basically a hugely disruptive waste of time. At the very least, if you simply made jury selection such that the prosecution can't dismiss jurors, that would A) make being on a jury less wasteful and B) help rebalance the power between the well-funded prosecutor and the poorly funded public defender.
- pc86 10y ago
  Why would most readers here get dismissed?
  - dsfyu404ed 10y ago
    prosecutor asks: "do you consider eyewitness testimony from a police officer to be more or less important than testimony from a non LEO" HN answers:"Maybe, LEOs are subject to the same imperfections as every other human on the planet, it's really goanna depend on the specific situation" Prosecution requests dismissal, defense counters, judge agrees with prosecution, HN reader is dismissed. Prosecution asks the same question to some random middle aged woman "sure, I guess it's more important, police officers are always supposed to be trustworthy. Judge face palms, steam is coming out of the defense attorney's ears, prosecution is smiling from ear to ear. Prosecution requests the juror, defense requests dismissal, judge rolls eyes and accepts.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      That's not particularly realistic. The first answer obviously can't support a dismissal for cause; the prosecution could burn a peremptory challenge, but that doesn't require the judge to "agree" because peremptory challenges are numerically limited but automatic.
  - bsder 10y ago
uptown 10y ago
> I see a considerable amount of apathy towards serving in a jury. Why is it seen as such an inconvenience? Because it's very disruptive to the schedules and finances of those affected with limited assurances of how long those disruptions may last. If you're self employed, should you be expected to forego an income for days, weeks or months to serve on a jury? If you're responsible for children, should you then be expected to find and pay for safe, reliable, ad-hoc childcare for an undetermined period of time? Lst week a friend drove hours to jury duty only to be told once there that his service wasn't needed - nobody's was that day. He's an employee with a salary so he wasn't impacted financially, but something like this could have a very real impact on someone living paycheck to paycheck or someone who is only paid when they work. I have great appreciation for the legal system and the trial by jury process - I've been called twice, but never selected to sit on a jury. But I believe that the system needs to address the impact that serving on a jury has on the lives of those tasked with serving.
- pseingatl 10y ago
  Your friend's jury service wasn't needed precisely because of the issue mentioned in the Times article--the cases plead out. That doesn't stop the system from summoning jurors. If trials have declined by 90% or more, so should juror summons. That hasn't been the case.
- refurb 10y ago
  But I believe that the system needs to address the impact that serving on a jury has on the lives of those tasked with serving. It already does. It's called being excused for hardship. If you can prove serving is an undue burden, you get excused.
- blakeyrat 10y ago
  They already excuse you for virtually no reason at all. (The two times I've served, I've seen people excused, no questions asked, for stuff a lot more petty than "need to find child care".) I'm not sure what you think needs to be improved.
Scarblac 10y ago
If I were accused of a crime, I would want extremely competent people with a passion for justice. Say, highly educated, experienced judges who have come through some tough qualifying process (with a large psychological component) and who can be completely independent in their decision making. Random people on a jury can be misled in many ways.
- techdragon 10y ago
  Especially when the process of jury selection is used to weed out independent thinkers, critical thinkers, pretty much anyone who thinks at all. I recall a study that found a downward trend over the decades, juries are on average are getting stupider as lawyers get to pick and choose for nearly any reason, they have been progressively more bold I'm their selection of "sheeple" jurors, but I can't find any references for it unfortunately :-/

danieltillett 10y ago

Jury duty should be properly compensated. Why does everyone else in the court room get paid a real wage for doing their job except the jury?

grkvlt 10y ago
How do you compensate them? Based on the compensation of the attorneys, maybe, but which side - the low-paid public prosecutor or the high-powered defence attorney? If you raise compensation to a high level, then jury duty becomes attractive as a source of income for unemployed people, or as a target of scams and cons. If you simply restrict compensation to paying the jurors what they would have been paid in their usual jobs you have the problem of the temporarily unemployed but normally highly paid person. It's difficult, and the government has to strike a balance somewhere.
- VLM 10y ago
  "then jury duty becomes attractive as a source of income for unemployed people, or as a target of scams and cons." How? Locally the system is a random lottery based on a pool of drivers license registrations. A standard mantra against voter-ID laws is that pool of poor people is highly challenged to obtain ID (which in reality is false, its just a mantra), so if anything there should be a statistical lack of unemployed people not a surplus. WRT scams and cons I guess you'd have fewer people lying about being members of the fully informed jury association or otherwise trying to avoid service, and that aversion to lie should make the system inherently fairer, so again no problem?
- ConroyBumpus 10y ago
  I would be thrilled if the amount dispensed were at least enough to cover the parking that the courthouse charges.
- danieltillett 10y ago
  Yes the government needs to strike a balance somewhere, but paying effectively zero is not anywhere near the right balance. Personally I would pay the jury the same as what the public defender is earning as this would make it clear to everyone how little they earn.
- rhino369 10y ago
  You could start with minimum wage. Jurors get like 5 bucks an hour in federal court. That's absurd.
staticautomatic 10y ago
Remarkably, the most progressive state in terms of payment for jury duty is Arizona. On unusually long trials jurors are compensated up to several hundred dollars a day.

jackcosgrove 10y ago

It's more complicated than that. Prosecution and defense must agree on the jurors, and both sides favor emotional people. The prosecution wants lock-em-up types and the defense wants bleeding hearts. I took a criminal justice class and the lecturer said that professionals, especially scientists and engineers, are discriminated against by both sides because they think too analytically. I don't know what the attorneys gain by selecting emotional people. Maybe it makes their jobs easier as it's more about theatrics than evidence. But it's still sad.

zeroer 10y ago
I'm not questioning that your lecturer said that, but in any particular case, shouldn't adding scientists and engineers be zero-sum? Must it not help one side and hurt the other?
- jackcosgrove 10y ago
  I was told defense does not like analytical types, and prosecution acquiesces because defense will simply veto that juror. Prosecution may want analytical types but can't get them, so they pick their battles elsewhere. Likewise, if a member of your family has been to jail, or is in law enforcement, you're out. Both sides have profiles of jurors that they want and don't want. After all this elimination, you're left with people whose predilections can't be guessed, in other words they're blank slates which both sides think they can sway. Choosing people interested in fact-finding could theoretically be zero-sum on a jury except that random people are not charged with crimes. In this same class, and it may be different now compared to 10 years ago, it was said that 90% of defendants plead out, and of the 10% of defendants who go to trial, 90% are convicted. Criminal justice resources are stretched thin, and it's in no one's interest to throw out a dragnet and haul in a bunch of iffy cases. This lecturer also said most pleas and convictions resulted from pretty obvious evidence. It's not Atticus Finch or Perry Mason. It's not even Night Court. If a case isn't a slam dunk, the prosecution won't bring charges. So being charged is tantamount to guilt.
  - jessaustin 10y ago

bsder 10y ago

> I see a considerable amount of apathy towards serving in a jury. Why is it seen as such an inconvenience? I can understand if it causes financial problems, but I've seen jury dodging at all levels. Because you lose a day (at least), you are not compensated, you may get tied up for an extended time if you get selected, and most of those of us on this forum would get dismissed during jury selection. So, it's basically a hugely disruptive waste of time. At the very least, if you simply made jury selection such that the prosecution can't dismiss jurors, that would A) make being on a jury less wasteful and B) help rebalance the power between the well-funded prosecutor and the poorly funded public defender.

pc86 10y ago
Why would most readers here get dismissed?
- dsfyu404ed 10y ago
  prosecutor asks: "do you consider eyewitness testimony from a police officer to be more or less important than testimony from a non LEO" HN answers:"Maybe, LEOs are subject to the same imperfections as every other human on the planet, it's really goanna depend on the specific situation" Prosecution requests dismissal, defense counters, judge agrees with prosecution, HN reader is dismissed. Prosecution asks the same question to some random middle aged woman "sure, I guess it's more important, police officers are always supposed to be trustworthy. Judge face palms, steam is coming out of the defense attorney's ears, prosecution is smiling from ear to ear. Prosecution requests the juror, defense requests dismissal, judge rolls eyes and accepts.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    That's not particularly realistic. The first answer obviously can't support a dismissal for cause; the prosecution could burn a peremptory challenge, but that doesn't require the judge to "agree" because peremptory challenges are numerically limited but automatic.
- bsder 10y ago

uptown 10y ago

> I see a considerable amount of apathy towards serving in a jury. Why is it seen as such an inconvenience? Because it's very disruptive to the schedules and finances of those affected with limited assurances of how long those disruptions may last. If you're self employed, should you be expected to forego an income for days, weeks or months to serve on a jury? If you're responsible for children, should you then be expected to find and pay for safe, reliable, ad-hoc childcare for an undetermined period of time? Lst week a friend drove hours to jury duty only to be told once there that his service wasn't needed - nobody's was that day. He's an employee with a salary so he wasn't impacted financially, but something like this could have a very real impact on someone living paycheck to paycheck or someone who is only paid when they work. I have great appreciation for the legal system and the trial by jury process - I've been called twice, but never selected to sit on a jury. But I believe that the system needs to address the impact that serving on a jury has on the lives of those tasked with serving.

pseingatl 10y ago
Your friend's jury service wasn't needed precisely because of the issue mentioned in the Times article--the cases plead out. That doesn't stop the system from summoning jurors. If trials have declined by 90% or more, so should juror summons. That hasn't been the case.
refurb 10y ago
But I believe that the system needs to address the impact that serving on a jury has on the lives of those tasked with serving. It already does. It's called being excused for hardship. If you can prove serving is an undue burden, you get excused.
blakeyrat 10y ago
They already excuse you for virtually no reason at all. (The two times I've served, I've seen people excused, no questions asked, for stuff a lot more petty than "need to find child care".) I'm not sure what you think needs to be improved.

Scarblac 10y ago

If I were accused of a crime, I would want extremely competent people with a passion for justice. Say, highly educated, experienced judges who have come through some tough qualifying process (with a large psychological component) and who can be completely independent in their decision making. Random people on a jury can be misled in many ways.

techdragon 10y ago
Especially when the process of jury selection is used to weed out independent thinkers, critical thinkers, pretty much anyone who thinks at all. I recall a study that found a downward trend over the decades, juries are on average are getting stupider as lawyers get to pick and choose for nearly any reason, they have been progressively more bold I'm their selection of "sheeple" jurors, but I can't find any references for it unfortunately :-/