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.
Related Stories
Techdirt reports
Two law enforcement agencies will be returning their Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) [vehicles] to Uncle Sam, with the announcements arriving almost simultaneously.
Davis, Calif., city officials have directed the police department to return a surplus U.S. military armored vehicle to the federal government after residents, citing images seen during protests in Ferguson, Mo., expressed fears of militarization.
The Davis Police Department now has 60 days to get rid of a $689,000 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected armored vehicle, which police acquired through a U.S. Defense Department program, and must consider other rescue vehicle options.
[...]
Over in San Jose, CA, it's a completely different story. Rather than having an MRAP pried from law enforcement's clutches by city reps, the San Jose Police Department gave it up voluntarily to protect its relationship with the people it serves.
San Jose police spokeswoman Sgt. Heather Randol told KCBS the decision was made based on concerns for potential damage to the department's image and community relationships.
"We want to keep their trust. We don't want them to feel we are going off on another path with our police department," she said. "We want them to feel comfortable about the tools that we use."
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @11:27AM
Freelance writer disgusted with jury system.
I, for one, am disgusted with every last person who tries to get out of jury duty.
But we probably could raise the compensation a bit.
My name seems to be on some kind of list of people who are too smart and educated. I've gotten two letters in the past 10 years, and they have me call a hotline with a recording on it. My group was dismissed both times.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @11:34AM
Faggot complains about jury duty.
Still sees it as a duty when all past perks of society have been outlawed (living in security with child brides) by women 100 years ago.
The only thing the state is to men is an enemy the woman can call on at will, and the wall that keeps them from taking a child bride (no all you 'murican angry brainwashed fathers are not the wall)
(Score: 5, Interesting) by driverless on Sunday August 21 2016, @01:18PM
My name seems to be on some kind of list of people who are too smart and educated.
Any sign of education or intelligence means you're excluded from jury duty. No defence lawyer will allow a juror who shows signs of being able to figure things out for themselves rather than being swayed by emotive lawyers' arguments.
In forty years I've never been called up for jury duty, and I'd actually like to be on a jury so I can carry out an (informal) psychological study on logical fallacies and cognitive biases.
Dr.Driverless, PhD.
(Score: 3, Informative) by SDRefugee on Sunday August 21 2016, @02:13PM
One absolutely gar-on-teed way to get kicked out of a jury... say the two magic words "Jury" and "Nullification"......
America should be proud of Edward Snowden, the hero, whether they know it or not..
(Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Monday August 22 2016, @01:41AM
Or wear a pin with FIJA on it. Though that might slide past...
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2, Interesting) by GmanTerry on Monday August 22 2016, @04:21AM
I was called in 2009 for Jury Duty. When I got there we were told that it wasn't a trial, we were there for Grand Jury Duty. That is four months of two full days a week. They needed 16 jurors. I can completely understand the problem with a citizen being ask to give up two days a week for four months. Almost everyone wanted out. If you work for a company that doesn't pay you full pay on jury duty you are screwed. No family can afford to take that sort of a pay cut. We were paid $12.00 a day plus $0.44 milage from the center of your zip code to the courthouse. I believe mine gave me about $37.00 a week. That was for two full eight hour days each week. The judge went through each person in the jury pool and most couldn't take two days off of work for four months. So what do you end up with? Mostly retired folks. I think we had four people who were actually working jobs while on our Grand Jury. The County has four Grand Juries running at all times. We were given about four cases per day but some cases took a whole day and a few longer. We probably heard 160 plus cases in the four months I served. The judge said our jury was one of the few he has seen that ended with all the original jurors, using none of the alternates.
However, that said, the old saying that you can indict a ham sandwich is true. All we hear is the prosecutor and the cops. Out of all the cases we returned, and all but one were "True Bills" which means they were referred to be tried. We added one count to an indictment where a woman was selling drugs out of her car and had a baby with her. We added a count of child endangerment. The one we let go was a 12 year old boy who touched his step sister's breasts while she was sleeping. He confessed and the State wanted to put him on the lifetime sex offender rolls. Twelve of us thought destroying the life of a 12 year old was unacceptable in a civilized society. We actually engaged in jury nullification and the words were spoken. It takes 12 of the 16 to make a judgement. Four Grand Jurors thought he should be labeled a sex offender, the other 12 of us thought not. I am not in any way a liberal but to destroy a life before it begins is uncivilized. Every day it happens somewhere. That is the basic story of my four months from 2009 to 2010.
All that aside, I actually learned a lot and enjoyed the companionship of my fellow jurors. You are one hundred percent correct that the prosecutors didn't like the idea of one of us even knowing that jury nullification was possible.
Since when is "public safety" the root password to the Constitution?
(Score: 1) by cyka on Tuesday August 23 2016, @02:16AM
If you work for a company that doesn't pay you full pay on jury duty you are screwed.
You might be interested to know that in Australia employers are legally required to pay you the difference in your wages while you are serving on a jury.
(Score: 1) by GmanTerry on Monday August 22 2016, @04:33AM
I was called in 2009 for Jury Duty. When I got there we were told that it wasn't a trial, we were there for Grand Jury Duty. That is four months of two full days a week. They needed 16 jurors. I can completely understand the problem with a citizen being ask to give up two days a week for four months. Almost everyone wanted out. If you work for a company that doesn't pay you full pay on jury duty you are screwed. No family can afford to take that sort of a pay cut. We were paid $12.00 a day plus $0.44 milage from the center of your zip code to the courthouse. I believe mine gave me about $37.00 a week. That was for two full eight hour days each week. The judge went through each person in the jury pool and most couldn't take two days off of work for four months. So what do you end up with? Mostly retired folks. I think we had four people who were actually working on our Grand Jury. The County has four Grand Juries running at all times. We were given about four cases per day but some cases took a whole day and a few longer. We probably heard 160 plus cases in the four months I served. The judge said our jury was one of the few he has seen that ended with all the original jurors, using none of the alternates.
However, that said, the old saying that you can indict a ham sandwich is true. All we hear is the prosecutor and the cops. Out of all the cases we returned, and all but one were "True Bills" which means they were referred to be tried. We added one count to an indictment where a woman was selling drugs out of her car and had a baby with her. We added a count of child endangerment. The one we let go was a 12 year old child who touched his step sister's breasts while she was sleeping. He confessed and the State wanted to put him on the lifetime sex offender rolls. Twelve of us thought destroying the life of a 12 year old was unacceptable in a civilized society. It takes 12 of the 16 to make a judgement. Four Grand Jurors thought he should be labeled a sex offender. When we deliberated the phrase "Jury Nullification" was talked about. I am not in any way a liberal but to destroy a life before it begins is uncivilized. Every day it happens. That is the basic story of my four months from 2009 to 2010.
All that aside, I actually learned a lot and enjoyed the companionship of my fellow jurors.
Since when is "public safety" the root password to the Constitution?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Sunday August 21 2016, @02:34PM
That was my experience last time I was called. Wait in this room with several hundred others for 1 hour, then go away and some of us come back in 30 minutes to wait another 30 minutes. I was actually tapped for the initial phases of a trial and moved on to a court room with 50 potential jurors so the lawyers for the 2 sides could pick which 12 of us they wanted on the jury. More waiting. When everyone was accounted for, the judge started by introducing the two sides and treating us to a little speech about how civilized this whole process was, and without us, the 2 sides would have to settle their differences with a duel, or the injured party would have to just suck it up. Thanked us all for making it possible to have a trial by jury. Blathered on a bit more in that vein. Well, that's nice and all, but as the article suggests, we all could be better served by a lot more modernizing of the whole process. Also, I would have preferred they move along and not spend any more of anyone's time on little civic duty speeches of that sort-- that was pretty close to the blogger's complaint of treating us like slow children. Thankfully it wasn't too long a speech, but we'd all already had half a day taken from our lives. Point us to a website with that, or write that sort of stuff down on a handout and pass those out, if they must. The right to a speedy trial ought to extend to the jurors.
The defense lawyer got a little desperate because he hadn't used all his rejections, and was really fishing for reasons. I gave him one, and I'm sure he had me booted. I would have served, but I was just fine with not being picked. It was a case about not paying for work done, supposedly because the work was shoddy, and hoo boy have I been on the unpaid end of a deal like that. My sympathies were totally with the workers who were being cheated of their pay. Even if the work really was shoddy, imagine if the defendant got away with not paying for that reason. Employers would be falling all over themselves to claim shoddy workmanship and not pay any workers anything. I know employers lie about that. Been done to me. For a year our work was good, and then all of a sudden it wasn't. Management felt like throwing that excuse out there and the fact they'd run out of money and couldn't make payroll wasn't somehow enough of a reason to cheat everyone. We hadn't stepped up, hadn't worked hard enough, it was all our fault the glorious start up was failing, and so we didn't deserve to be paid anyway. They knew they were broke, and chose to gamble that last month that income would at last start picking up, they'd turn the corner, and be able to make payroll by the time it was due, or possibly just a few days late. They should have informed everyone of the gamble they were taking, but of course they did not.
Some factual problems with the submission: Students are not required to miss class. Nor are parents required to "figure out child care". Being the sole person caring for a child is a valid reason not to serve. Same with attending school. However, employers are required to allow workers to serve.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Oakenshield on Sunday August 21 2016, @04:19PM
But ONCE about seven years ago I was called for grand jury. The judge and prosecutor took any and every excuse not to serve and dismissed each member who objected with cause to serving. Then the prosecutor asked "Who just does not want to serve?" Anyone raising their hand was dismissed as well. We still had 14 people left. I had to report to the courthouse every Wednesday morning for three months.
Since I worked for the state, I got my regular pay as long as I surrendered my jury pay ($10 per day). So I had no objections to serving. There were many of us that were "educated" in the pool and it was pretty diverse as to age, status, and background. It was an eye opening experience to see the inner workings of a grand jury versus what you might expect, but it was fascinating. The sad part was that probably 70% of the cases were drug or drug related.
We are a fairly small middle class county so my experience may have been biased. The judge told us that our neighboring county to the west is not so generous with dismissals and that grand jury duty is five days a week for three months. That would suck for someone not in my position to serve.
(Score: 3, Informative) by art guerrilla on Sunday August 21 2016, @02:35PM
just so you know, in many areas you can volunteer for jury duty, don't have to wait to be called...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @06:54PM
In my state, any positive indication you want to serve on a jury allows you to be dismissed for cause.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday August 21 2016, @10:19PM
I was thinking about volunteering over my break, but I forgot and wound up summoned anyways. I've lost count off how many times I've been summoned. This'll be my second time serving as usually I've been unable to free the time.
Now they at least pay minimum wage plus travel.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @12:53AM
I've lost count off how many times
Francis! I am picturing "12 Angry Francises".
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Sunday August 21 2016, @05:52PM
"No Lawyer will allow a juror who shows signs of being able to figure things out for themselves rather than being swayed by emotive lawyers' arguments."
FTFY, The prosecution does just as much as the defense to get rid of any potential jurors who will not believe an LEO's testimony is somehow beyond question.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by ledow on Sunday August 21 2016, @05:57PM
What sort of crappy legal system lets lawyers choose people on the jury?
No wonder the US is in the state it is.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Sunday August 21 2016, @09:53PM
Lawyers are allowed to get people off the jury because of bias, of most kinds. In many cases in the US, in addition to bias that the lawyers can demonstrate, they are allowed a set number (say 3) of strikes without needing to demonstrate bias. There are a few rules governing them - they cannot be used to eliminate a group (e.g. black people, or women) from the jury pool.
They are most certainly not allowed to affirm jurors, or pull them in. Just get them kicked out of the jury pool. In many lawyer dramas, it's considered quite important to know who will be taking their place.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday August 21 2016, @10:22PM
There's limits. They get a small number of jurors they can reject without cause. They have an unlimited number they can reject with cause.
It's imperfect, but it's better than the alternative.
(Score: 3, Touché) by deadstick on Sunday August 21 2016, @06:08PM
Well, Doc, I have a Master's degree in engineering, and I've sat on two juries, one civil and one criminal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @07:27PM
Panel filtering is a Yuuuuuge waste of time, and likely useless. Unless it's a murder case, they should take what they get as-is. If there is one dissenting juror, then let the judge be the tie-breaker. That way one nut doesn't affect the case.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PartTimeZombie on Monday August 22 2016, @01:12AM
I'm not from the US, but it's no different here.
I was called up for jury duty (High Court, not District Court, so more important cases) and was told to wear a suit and tie if I didn't want to serve. Sure enough, they couldn't get rid of me fast enough.
The funny thing is, a guy I was chatting with while we were waiting was also wearing a suit, and he works as a concrete cutter, he had heard the same thing I had, and was also bounced very quickly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @08:09PM
The prosecution doesn't like it either. Neither side wants smart people.
This really says something about lawyers. Each lawyer believes that emotional arguments will benefit them, not the opposition. Each lawyer is thinking he is so much more persuasive than the other lawyer.
Obvious, it can not be the case that each lawyer is better than the other.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @03:36PM
Grow a pony tail. I have one and those lawyers kick me to the curb so fast you won't believe it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @06:32PM
A colleague of mine has both a beard and ponytail, AND a Ph.D. in physics, and he served on a week-long murder (or attempted murder, I don't remember which) case.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Monday August 22 2016, @08:26PM
Someone tried to break into my house a few years ago one winter's night and damaged the front door. The police came to investigate. Their forensics officer, who took impressions of the damage to try to match against the implement used, had a pony tail and a beard! They'll be letting queers join the Conservative Party next!
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1) by Rickter on Sunday August 21 2016, @05:18PM
I've been summoned for jury duty about 7 times in the last 15 years. 3 times, I've actually had to report, once for a misdemeanor and twice for felony cases. The first was a felony (Aggravated Burglary if I recall properly), and we had to sit the whole day, and they were about 15 minutes from getting done, and they sent everybody not dismissed already home and we all came back the next day to finish. Not ideal, and I was one of two alternate candidates dismissed at the end (and the last called out of the pool).
My second felony jury selection process, they finished about 12:05, and we were on our way. I don't know if they completely changed the selection process for the whole county, or if this particular judge is more efficient than others, but a morning is quick enough that most people would probably be less down on the whole process.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @05:26PM
Oh please. If you want a sure fire way to never get called for jury duty again just get convicted of a crime. That'll spare you of the burden of having to make two phone calls over a ten year period.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @05:34PM
Back to the short bus with you.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @11:27AM
Complaining about jury duty from an apple laptop whilst drinking coffee with a pound of creamer in it isn't stuff that matters.
So here's something that does have something to do with tech/stuff-that-matters.
Free software game, try it out:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/chaosesqueanthology/ [sourceforge.net] [sourceforge.net]
Tell what you like.
Yea, I know this story is about various Mr "Deez Nutz" and Mrs "Equivalent" are unfortunate and underprivileged enough to not be able to cognitively recognize the proper course of action when asked the "want to not serve on a jury" questions. The story itself is offtopic to this site however...
To avoid javascript:
Info:
https://lgdb.org/game/chaosesque-anthology [lgdb.org]
http://www.moddb.com/games/chaosesqueanthology [moddb.com]
Direct download:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/chaosesqueanthology/Rel_93/XonoticChaosEsqueAnthologyREL93.iso?r=&ts=1471771440&use_mirror=liquidtelecom [sourceforge.net]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @11:42AM
This project is apparently by that religious pedofile loonie. You might want to give it a wide berth just in case the lunacy is contagious.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @12:58PM
Explain?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @06:47PM
The author mentioned that lots of folks brought their data terminal thingies.
He also mentioned that the number of available electrical outlets was limited.
There was internet service available, but that didn't have a proper configuration and the first guy in (who decided to stream a movie) hogged all the bandwidth.
There was also inadequate air conditioning in the waiting room.
He used the phrase "first world problem" in his article.
Sorry for not doing a cut and paste of the entire article for you.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @07:57PM
Is a story mentioning that someone watched TV a tech story?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @01:40AM
Was the "TV" actually a stream and did it screw a whole bunch of folks by hogging all the bandwidth?
Might any Soylentils find themselves in the same spot those folks were?
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @11:31AM
Do jury duty, its you're duty as a member of society!
But no child brides for you!
JAIL JAL JAILLLL
Awaiting a nuke unless Delaware (or better) can be reborn.
>In the United States, as late as the 1880s most States set the minimum age at 10-12, (in Delaware it was 7 in 1895).[8] Inspired by the "Maiden Tribute" female reformers in the US initiated their own campaign[9] which petitioned legislators to raise the legal minimum age to at least 16, with the ultimate goal to raise the age to 18. The campaign was successful, with almost all states raising the minimum age to 16-18 years by 1920.
>Also: see: D_uter_nomy chapter 22 verses 28-29, hebrew allows men to rape girl children and keep them: thus man + girl is obviously fine. Feminists are commanded to be killed as anyone enticing others to follow another ruler/judge/god is to be killed as-per Deuteronomy. It is wonderful when this happens from time to time: celebrate)
(Score: 5, Interesting) by VLM on Sunday August 21 2016, @11:48AM
is not 2016
The noob thinks working was invented by Apple in 2007 LOL
Back in the 18th century there were plenty of cows that needed milking and grains and produce that needed seeding and harvesting, etc. Not to mention trains that had to run on time. factory positions to fill, etc.
I guess the main difference between the 19th century and 2016 is only about half the population works today so half the time "not being able to work" isn't going to make much sense, but in the 19th century if you didn't work you didn't eat, pretty much.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday August 21 2016, @04:11PM
Back in the 18th century there were plenty of cows that needed milking and grains and produce that needed seeding and harvesting, etc. Not to mention trains that had to run on time. factory positions to fill, etc.
Trains in the 18th century? Really??
Anyhow, I'd say the biggest difference between then and now was that no judge in the 18th century would order a jury trial in a farm community during planting or harvesting season. In general, people didn't travel very far, so jurors were chosen from a local community (where most people tended to know each other), and the bailiff and judges could exercise judgment in when and whom to summon.
but in the 19th century if you didn't work you didn't eat, pretty much.
This became more true with the rise of industrialization and factories. However, a lot of factory workers in the early days weren't property owners, and many states drew solely on property owners for jury pools. And people like farmers were relatively easy to get to serve on juries, as long as you avoided the the busy times of the year.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @07:04PM
I live in a rural county. The courthouse doesn't require jurors to show before 10AM and parents can elect for the school bus to drop their kids off there if mom or dad is on a jury. They also don't require full bail during harvest season. I can't imagine any of those are true in the city next county over.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by scruffybeard on Sunday August 21 2016, @12:55PM
What a jerk. I bet this guy would be the first to complain about the quality of the jury pool if he needed one. It is only a couple of days, and depending on the jurisdiction, you are given weeks of notice, and usually a chance to defer at least once or twice. No, it is not fun, and usually not a well run process, but it is what is required to insure that the civil and criminal court systems remains fair.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @02:13PM
The system does not work, at least not in my town. I struggle to get by and work two jobs to make ends meet. Jury duty here pays only $15 per day, and parking costs $20. The end result of that is that I pay $5 to be on the jury. Do you think that I will be an impartial juror knowing that if the case takes more than a day there is a very real risk that I will be homeless?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @06:52PM
Yeah. He mentioned that in TFA and I included it in TFS.
Now, against whom will your wrath be directed for being screwed over?
If the state was the one imposing unpleasantness on me, I'd be inclined to decide against the state.[1]
...but then, I'm not a Trump supporter who is easily convinced to blame disempowered groups for the way The Establishment makes the lives of The Common Folk more unpleasant.
[1] After the revelations of prosecutors overcharging to try to force a plea deal in the Aaron Swartz case[2] and a quasi-recent news story where a judge disallowed the participation of all 250 prosecutors of the Orange County District Attorney's office in a case over which he was presiding because of that group's pattern of dishonesty (this on top of my natural distrust of authority), I'm even more disinclined to side with the state.
[2] The way I figure it, if you're willing to chance the giant mass of charges a politically-motivated douchebag has piled on you in order to get your knees to buckle and you want to go to trial, chances are that you are more on the side of the angels than the state employee is.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @02:14PM
The very point of his complaint is that the jury pool is of low quality and should be fixed by increasing the compensation and being more flexible, as educated people can't realistically drop everything to do jury duty.
In this world you don't fix mass behavioral issues by shouting "suck it up!!" or "it's shameful to avoid jury duty!!". You provide incentives. The guy observes that the incentives aren't enough and everyone was trying to get out, and your response is to tell him to stop whining.
It is you who shouldn't complain if you need a jury and it sucks, not him.
(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.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday August 21 2016, @03:57PM
It is only a couple of days
It is not necessarily "only a couple of days." That depends on the your state/municipality (some places only make you report one day; others each day for a week), and if you are chosen to serve, the specific trial you are chosen for (which could last a day or months).
No, it is not fun, and usually not a well run process, but it is what is required to insure that the civil and criminal court systems remains fair.
Precisely why is it "required to insure that the civil and criminal court systems remain fair" that we have what is "usually not a well-run process"??
I agree that some of the author's complaints are a bit of whining. (And he actually demonstrates that he's a jerk when the first day someone hogs the wireless bandwidth by streaming a movie, so the second day the author decides to torrent a bunch of stuff for no apparent reason -- likely messing up a bunch of other people's experience.)
On the other hand, there are a bunch of legitimate complaints interspersed in the article. For example, he says that there was a great deal of confusion about which courthouse to show up to, and many people didn't figure it out until they spent 45 minutes standing in a security line (and then had to go to another building). That sounds like something that could be resolved relatively easily with signs and/or a clear notice on the jury summons.
There are all sorts of things like this that make the jury duty system "usually not a well-run process," and many of them could be improved with just a little thought, or even just a realization that there might be other ways to do stuff. I've lived in a place where things were very organized in terms of whether you had to show up -- you called on the day before you were supposed to report, and an automated message told you whether your group needed to show. If the case load was low for the week, they'd just tell you that your group was excused completely. In contrast, I also lived in a place where you were expected to show up every day for a week and just sit there and wait to see if they needed you. Why?? Jury summons tend to be sent out a month or two in advance (if not more), so how could they be expected to determine the right number of jurors needed that far in advance? Is it that hard to take 2 minutes every day to record an automated message which could save hundreds of prospective jurors from missing work and showing up on a given day for no reason??
Also, the author is simply reporting the fact that the vast majority of people seem to have excuses trying to get out of serving, except for those too poor or too stupid to figure out an effective excuse. That's a real problem, since it affects the composition of our jury pool.
I completely agree with you that jury service is a civic duty, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't point out flaws or try to make the experience better. If jury duty didn't resemble spending a week at the DMV as much, maybe fewer people would be making every excuse they can to try to get out of that civic duty.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Monday August 22 2016, @05:35AM
Is it that hard to take 2 minutes every day to record an automated message which could save hundreds of prospective jurors from missing work and showing up on a given day for no reason??
It isn't, at least in some California counties; you call every afternoon that week to see if you need to come in, rather than come in (seriously?) daily. It's obvious inconsistencies like this that make me wish Google provided government computing services/infrastructure. Heck, if Apple did it, people would probably line up for jury duty.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Sunday August 21 2016, @07:24PM
What a jerk
Why? He did his duty.
He's not being unreasonable. There really are people who will be absolutely ruined if they are forced to serve, especially if it takes a while. In my county, the only sure deferral is death (your own). What are your odds of a fair trial if half the jury is wondering what they will do when they can't pay the rent? (and since you're the star of the show, guess who they can't help but blame). I have been through the jury process a few times (never been chosen) and believe me, they make sure the prospective jurors know that the reason they're not on their way home is that the defendant insisted on a trial (never because the prosecutor couldn't be reasonable).
Employers are required to let you serve, but they are not required to pay you while you serve. If you don't have a set schedule, they may decide to zero out your hours for a week or two just in case.
You don;'t really expect people to end up homeless in order to serve do you? Well, in many counties, they apparently do. They could at least pay minimum wage to take care of the people most likely to be grievously harmed by serving.
(Score: 2) by SDRefugee on Sunday August 21 2016, @02:11PM
About 3 weeks ago I received a jury duty summons, directing me to report last monday to our local court. The summons directs you to call in to an automated phone number the night before the day you are supposed to report. The call tells you what time to be at the courthouse the next day, it also may tell you that you're not needed to report and that you've done your jury service until at least 18 months. Since I've lived in Las Vegas/Clark County Nevada, (moved here in 1996), I've received two of these summonses. As far as I'm concerned the court here does jury duty the right way.. Here, if you're summoned for it, you spend ONE day sitting around, and getting brought into courtrooms and asked your opinions on the police, etc. IF you are not selected for a jury by the end of the day at 5pm, you're DONE.. If, perchance, you ARE selected for a jury, you collect the pittance of $40/day after the second day of the trial..
Of the two times I've been summoned, only the first time, probably 7 years ago, when I was still working, did I actually have to go downtown to the courthouse and spend the day sitting around, reading a book (no newspapers, please). I went thru two jury selection interviews and I guess neither the defense nor the prosecution liked my answers, as I was excused from both. The second summons I received directing me to report last monday, I called the night before and was told I was not needed...
Contrast this way of doing jury selection vs the way they did it in San Diego, where I lived prior to moving to Las Vegas. There, if you were called to jury duty, you had a two-week period of calling in every evening to find out if you had to report downtown, where if you drove there, YOU had to pay the ripoff parking rates to park, and then go sit in a stinky waiting room from 8am to 5pm.. Oh and did I mention, Las Vegas court pays your parking when you report for jury duty here...
America should be proud of Edward Snowden, the hero, whether they know it or not..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @09:34PM
In NC it is the same way. Except for pay. 13 for the first day, 20 for the second, 40 thereafter. You only serve one day usually and call in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @03:15PM
I know myself, i cant afford to go on leave for weeks or months. Both from monetary reasons, and practical ones due to daily responsibilities. While i would like to be able to serve if called, ( i do believe in 'the system' ) it wont happen unless its only going to be a couple of days.
I am sure i am not alone, and its why you often end up with a bunch of uneducated and easily manipulated people on a jury.
(Score: 2) by danmars on Wednesday August 24 2016, @01:43PM
In the summer of 2008 or 2009 I had the 2 days of jury selection and then served on a jury for a sexual abuse case in Maine. I worked for an employer that paid the difference between your salary and the compensation, which should be mandatory. If it's each citizen's duty to be called to jury duty, there should also be a duty for the employer to not stand in the way of the requirement.
We had some older people, some younger people, and some middle-aged people. While those with few commitments were over-represented, the jury was not exclusively made up of them. The biggest deciding factor in jury selection was whether we or a close friend or a relative had been sexually abused, which seemed to eliminate at least half the candidates. I was pleased with how the whole process went, and if I ever have to go before a jury then I hope it's one as good as ours.
I think the process varies greatly by location.