SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the government-of,-by,-and-for-the-people-on-its-deathbed dept.
I've previously mentioned federal whistleblower Peter Van Buren here and his expose on working for minimum wage at a store he called "Bullseye" while his lawsuit wound its way through the court system.
He has now blogged about a part of government which, apparently, hasn't had any new ideas since 1856.
I just wrapped up a couple of days of jury duty.
Note "jury duty", which is very different than serving on a jury. I didn't do that. Being on an actual jury involves making a careful judgment on someone's life. I did jury duty, which involves waiting and sitting and waiting, while watching your last hopeful images of democracy fade away.
[...] It was about 10:30 before a guy who said he'd been doing this exact same job for 34 years began speaking to us as if we were slow children or fairly smart puppies. The bulk of his explanation was about how most of us would get our $40 a day jury payment, and the many exceptions to that. It was then lunch.
[After lunch, we waited for the rest of the day but] were unneeded. We were dismissed until re-summoned tomorrow morning.
[...] The next morning, [...] I got called to jury selection, along with about 20 [others who had been waiting in the same semi-air-conditioned room]. We were brought to an unventilated hallway to wait for 30 minutes before entering an actual courtroom. [...] We did an olde timey swearing in, and then were invited to visit the judge and explain any "issues" we might have that would prevent us from serving on a jury.
It was pathetic. Nearly everyone bitched, whined, begged, and complained that they could not do it.
[...] I got bounced out of the jury selection in the next phase. Both the prosecutor and the defense attorney asked us questions about our jobs, our thoughts on law enforcement (especially if we trusted police to testify honestly), and the like. I answered every question completely candidly and was thrown back to wait three more hours until "jury duty" was over. The only way I could have served would have been to lie.
[...] This system is a mess. [...] The 19th century notion that everyone simply must find a way to put their life on hold does not work. [...] Telling single parents to just figure out child care, Wall Street brokers to just not care about millions of dollars, students to just miss class, and people who work freelance or hourly to just suck it up and lose their already limited income is not 2016.
If assigned to an actual jury, you stay with the trial until it is done. [...] If you pull a murder case or one of the many medical malpractice suits, it could be a month+. [...] For $40 a day [...]--minus the minimum five dollars [that] commuting to court and back costs, means you are getting about half the minimum wage in New York, and even that takes six to eight weeks to be sent to you. [...] If you are already living on the margins, you cannot afford to serve on a jury.
[...] A lot of folks whose English was poor or who sounded as if they did not get much of an education had no excuse the judge would accept [to be dismissed].
[...] My limited window into all of this suggests juries might just be made up of people who can't get out of it. Hard to say how bitter that makes them feel listening to an actual case.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday August 21 2016, @10:29PM
It's not about incentives, it's about recognizing that many employers don't pay for time on jury duty and people still need the pay. Around here the municipal court is being sued for only paying $10 a day plus travel. The superior and federal courts both pay minimum wage plus travel.
My guess is that they finally reached the point where they couldn't get enough jurors.
I'll be doing Jury duty this time because I've already got the week Off and nothing to do, but a couple weeks later and I wouldn't have been able to afford too. Plus if I do it I'm automatically Off the hook for 2 years.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Saturday August 27 2016, @12:43PM
Professional cheerleaders sued (and won) for receiving less than minimum wage. Does a court believe that jury service is less valuable than professional cheerleading?
1702845791×2
(Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday August 27 2016, @02:58PM
It's not the court, it's the legislature that fails to provide the funds. If you talk with a lawyer, bailiff, judge or anybody involved with the courts, they all agree that the pay should be higher.
The problem is that they aren't the ones that make the decision on jury pay, that's the politicians and they seem to care more about putting people in prison than seeing that justice is served.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Saturday August 27 2016, @05:25PM
Could former jurors file a class action lawsuit for minimum wage or better? There is a good precedent. Despite willingly entering into a fixed payment contract, the cheerleaders subsequently obtained terms exceeding minimum wage. Ignoring that, why doesn't any judge rule that a case cannot be tried because the jurors are inadequately compensated and therefore biased?
1702845791×2
(Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday August 27 2016, @06:27PM
There's already a lawsuit going on locally against the municipal court. Both the federal and superior court already pay minimum wage, but municipal court only pays $10 a day.
The basis for the suit is that it unfairly discriminates against minorities in court as minorities are more likely to be unable to serve jury duty because of financial hardships.