Revamping the Jury System

[redduck]

Re-Vamping the Jury System

People (OK, many people) complain about how the jury system operates. I’ve noticed that lots of potential jurors try to get out of serving--or at the minimum go into it with a negative, sometimes hostile attitude. Any ideas how the jury system can be re-vamped so it is more appealing (or, at least less noxious)?

 

[joeea]

You speak of "the Jury System" as if there is only one. In my state alone, there are several.

 

[REWahoo]

Any ideas how the jury system can be re-vamped so it is more appealing (or, at least less noxious)?

Let people "serve from home" electronically.

 

[Big_Hitter]

start paying jurors $500 a day

 

[Fedup]

Now we’re talking sense.

 

[redduck]

You speak of "the Jury System" as if there is only one. In my state alone, there are several.

OK, let's make up a special plate just for: joeea, how you would you re-vamp the several jury systems in your state?

 

[Big_Hitter]

I've been on several juries. The most common complaint I hear from prospective jurors is that "they have to be at work" - so we should compensate jurors accordingly

 

[Sunset]

Only ask us to serve on a jury within 15 miles of our home.
Move the courts to safe neighborhoods so I don't risk my life running the gauntlet of crime to get there and back each day of duty.

 

[Katsmeow]

In many areas they have made changes to the jury system that have improved it. Where we lived until recently, for example, if you were called for jury duty you could freely change the date within a range of several weeks. That was helpful. Also, if you went and didn't get picked by a certain time of day (I think the morning) you could leave. Also, there was a number you could call before you arrived to see if you had to appear. If they had called more people than they needed then your service would get cancelled.

Those are big improvements over how it was 30 years ago when you were called for several days and had no input on scheduling at all.

All of that said - I do think that paying people more money would help. Either a larger fee (often it is not enough to cover parking) or tying it to your pay. Another possibility would be to require employers to pay for jury duty up to X number of days. The long trials are an issue. When my son was in school, one of his teachers was a juror in a main Enron criminal trial. She was gone for a very long time. I am not sure how that worked financially.

 

[Beldar]

start paying jurors $500 a day

+1

I appreciate the value of a jury and it's service, but when they only offer to pay me $7 or $8 for a day's service (mileage), well, that doesn't even cover the cost of lunch and/or parking. Make it worth my time (and others) and I think we'll see less squirming out during the selection process.

I do sympathize with self employed folks who can lose a lot of money if they miss a few days of work (no employer "jury duty" pay for them).

_B

 

[Mdlerth]

I thought Amendment XIII abolished slavery in 1865

1. Don't schedule people for jury duty without regard to their own lives. It's insulting and ridiculous in a free society to dismiss citizens' priorities as irrelevant compared to making it convenient for the almighty government.
2. Don't waste people's time by ordering up a hundred of whom only twelve will end up serving.
3. Compensate them properly.

 

[RobbieB]

I have never worked at a Co. that had less than a week of paid jury service should you be called. I always show up whenever summoned.

I have no problems with serving at all.

 

[mrWinter]

Yeah, seems pretty straight forward, if jurors provide value, compensate them monetarily for every hour they are there. The municipality is then incentivized to not waste people's time, and people are then incentivized to go. Everyone is taxed appropriately to cover the cost, and as they serve duty periodically they get the money back, it's a wash, but no poor sap gets stuck serving for 2 months all the while unable to earn a paycheck. And of course the types of jobs that don't include jury duty coverage as a perk are often those that pay the least, meaning those who don't get covered for their time are those least able to afford it. Boggles the mind that this hasn't been fixed already. Maybe because old people vote, and old people have time, so they don't see it as a problem that they should pay more taxes to solve?

 

[TwoByFour]

Let people "serve from home" electronically.

Haha, right. Most of those people will be multi-tasking - watching TV, napping, playing video games. Anything but minding the trial.

 

[aja8888]

One person mentioned having employers pay employees for jury time served. Rather than penalize employers for the court's inability to populate juries, why not have the serving jurors paid through a Juror Fund Pool that consists of court fines collected through the court system? (I mean, where does all that collected fine money go anyway?)

 

[aja8888]

Haha, right. Most of those people will be multi-tasking - watching TV, napping, playing video games. Anything but minding the trial.

Hey, they may be watching Judge Judy or reruns of Perry Mason during that time!

 

[REWahoo]

Haha, right. Most of those people will be multi-tasking - watching TV, napping, playing video games. Anything but minding the trial.

Hey, they may be watching Judge Judy or reruns of Perry Mason during that time!

Not if they follow the same process my recently-completed online driver's safety course followed. Intersperse in the proceedings a question related to recent testimony and allow only 30 seconds to respond. Failure to correctly answer the question the first time would require the juror to view a video the testimony related to the question again. Then a second question would be asked and failure to correctly answer that question would result in a second video review session. Failure a third time would be considered contempt of court, with appropriate penalties.

With convenience comes consequences....

 

[marko]

start paying jurors $500 a day

+1

Retired or working this would do the trick. I would add 'whether you're dismissed'.

As an adder, I live a mile from the Superior courthouse but often will be told I need to appear 40 miles away at another courthouse, in the crappiest neighborhood, where there's no parking and my odds of ever seeing my car again are 50/50. (joeea...you know where I'm talking about!) No thanks.

I've been called perhaps a dozen times in my life but have never been able to serve; always dismissed due to a high profile family connection. Another waste of everybody's time.

So: Pay people and make it worth their while, don't send them a hour drive away when they could walk to court, don't call them knowing they can't serve and....stop making it sound like this is some sort of wonderful privilege when, as it now stands it's just a Royal PITA.

 

[Which Roger]

How about "Professional Juror" as a career. To become one, you would have to pass a series of tests and interviews to prove that you're objective, rational, and good at processing information and drawing conclusions, i.e., highly skilled at finding the truth.


Tongue-in-cheek, of course. Among other things, the lawyers who know how to navigate our system (where the objective is winning rather than finding the truth) would never go for it. But I can imagine a different world with a different value system where what I propose would be better.

 

[Aerides]

Some ideas:

Hourly workers - compensate them their actual pay because they aren't getting paid if they aren't working. Include tipped workers in this. A waiter can't pay rent if he has to be on a jury for a week.

Childcare issues, others with hardships, lack of transportation, small business owners (less than 5?) - provide an application/exemption process that keeps you out of getting called for 18 months or so, so those with legit issues don't even have to come to the court and explain this.

Retirees: Revisit the age exemption (in FLA I believe you are out of the pool if you're over 70 - maybe allow an opt in for those that would still want to serve?)

Volunteers: Allow all ages to volunteer for annual service or something like that, with a minor increase to pay perhaps. If I was going to get $100 per day, now that I'm ER'd I would go far more willingly than when working.

Offer choices: Grand Jury or trials with potential sequesters should pull from a pool that is willing to do that, vs. the average 1-3 day trial.

 

[Big_Hitter]

I have never worked at a Co. that had less than a week of paid jury service should you be called. I always show up whenever summoned.

I have no problems with serving at all.

us to but most folks don't have that luxury

jury service is pretty much like a jerry springer episode

 

[cathy63]

Having been on 6 juries now, I think the best thing they could do is grant a lifetime exemption to everyone who's been on 3 or more juries in the same county. We do have the "one day or one trial" system now, which is much better than the first time I served where they put me on 3 juries in two weeks; but I still end up on the panel about half the times I'm called (if only I were this lucky at the lottery). We can also switch our service so that it's at the most convenient courthouse, reschedule it as needed, and get two free transit passes per day in addition to the $15/day stipend.

They could also allow people who want to volunteer. DH actually loves jury duty and would happily serve several times a year if they let him.

 

[Walt34]

I like the idea of paying the jurors (and the ones who are called in but not selected) $500 a day or at least what they'd otherwise earn at their jobs. This money should come from the court's budget. That would give the judges incentive to disallow all the monkey business that the lawyers engage in when selecting jurors and wasting everyone's time. Not paying people enough to even pay for parking and lunch is simply insulting. Little wonder so many people try to get out of jury duty.

Where we used to live in MD the policy was "one trial or one day" which I'm fine with. Here in WV I was called for jury duty and for a period (I think three weeks) I had to call a number every evening to find out if I had to appear the next day. What a PITA that was! Talk about not being able to make any plans for anything. This was during the time when we were dealing with moving FIL from his house to the CCRC and when I was called in, I had written a letter to the court administrator asking to be excused for that day because we had something going on with FIL. Not only did they excuse me for that day, they excused me for the remainder of the term, probably realizing that I'd be more focused on FIL's and DW's issues than I would be with any trial.

 

[imoldernu]

Selection of jurors to be as normal.
Trials held without jurors being present.
Provide a transcript of the trial.
Jurors to be asked individually to present their questions in writing.
Jurors brought in to listen to lawyer responses.
Jurors retire for decision.

 

[braumeister]

I've never had a problem with jury duty. Sure, it's an inconvenience, and it was usually a small financial sacrifice, but it's a civic duty. Sometimes it's pretty inconvenient to vote, too. But I do it anyway for the same reason.

On the money issue, the strangest policy I've seen was once when I was still w*rking. My company paid my normal salary but I had to give them the few dollars I got as a juror. So I was out the exorbitant parking cost near the courthouse, but still not a big deal.

The only part I really object to is the hours and hours just sitting around in the jury pool room waiting to see if you might be called into an actual courtroom. But even that has an explanation. As I've heard it, many cases go right up the the moment of a scheduled trial and then get settled. The big group of jurors is just sitting there waiting on the off chance that there might not be a settlement.

If I could tweak the system, I'd like to see something like Which Roger suggested above:

How about "Professional Juror" as a career. To become one, you would have to pass a series of tests and interviews to prove that you're objective, rational, and good at processing information and drawing conclusions, i.e., highly skilled at finding the truth.

These folks would merely be added to the normal pool of citizens, and the voir dire process would still apply to them. I might even volunteer for it, as long as something could be done about the sitting around for hours I already mentioned.