easysurfer
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2008
- Messages
- 13,151
I say, how about serve one time, won't be called again for at least another 5 years? That might boost morale for serving.
Revamping the Jury System
- Thread starter redduck
- Start date
This is a prime example of the "monkey business" that I referred to in post 23. Instead of allowing the lawyers to "play chicken" to see which one folds first, how about requiring them and their clients to act like adults, make a decision the day before, or even better the week before, and hold them to it and stop wasting so many other people's time.
davebarnes
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Having just spent this Monday at the courthouse as a potential juror, I have some ideas.
1. Pay prospective jurors a decent daily rate ($200+) right from the start. Self-employed people are screwed by the current system. Hourly wage people with crappy employers are screwed even more.
2. Daycare is good. Denver County has that. Yea!
3. Treat jurors with respect.
a. Don't drag 48 prospects into a courtroom when you are seating a 6+1 person jury. As number 47 on the list, I knew I was never going to get called.
b. Don't make me sit on a rock hard wooden bench (this should not be a Calvinist experience) for 3+ hours listening to lawyers question people.
c. Kick people out of the jury box as soon as it is obvious they will not be on the jury. For example, a woman sitting in the box did not understand who the plaintiff and defendant were after 2+ hours of questioning. Yet, she was not booted until the very end. for example, plaintiff is suing Company A and a person in the box works for Company A. He sat there for over an hour before being booted right at the end.
1. Pay prospective jurors a decent daily rate ($200+) right from the start. Self-employed people are screwed by the current system. Hourly wage people with crappy employers are screwed even more.
2. Daycare is good. Denver County has that. Yea!
3. Treat jurors with respect.
a. Don't drag 48 prospects into a courtroom when you are seating a 6+1 person jury. As number 47 on the list, I knew I was never going to get called.
b. Don't make me sit on a rock hard wooden bench (this should not be a Calvinist experience) for 3+ hours listening to lawyers question people.
c. Kick people out of the jury box as soon as it is obvious they will not be on the jury. For example, a woman sitting in the box did not understand who the plaintiff and defendant were after 2+ hours of questioning. Yet, she was not booted until the very end. for example, plaintiff is suing Company A and a person in the box works for Company A. He sat there for over an hour before being booted right at the end.
After spending a fair part of my life in countries with no jury system, I think our jury system works very well and I'd be reluctant to make big changes. If people don't want to serve, I don't want them on my jury.
Paying people fairly so part time / hourly employees can afford to go makes sense. So does helping with transportation and childcare.
Paying people fairly so part time / hourly employees can afford to go makes sense. So does helping with transportation and childcare.
We kind of have that here. If you just show up and don't get put on a trial, then you're exempt for 1 year. If you serve on a jury, you're exempt for 3 years.
easysurfer
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2008
- Messages
- 13,151
That's a sweet deal where you are at. For me if I serve, I'm only exempt for 1 year.
At least the turkey sandwich and chips I had for lunch break when last serving hit the spot
.
Stop letting the attorneys pick the jurors. Randomly pick citizens from various backgrounds, race, religion, sex and so on. I think this is the way to pick our political representatives too. Just pick people, citizens, randomly. School them in US law.
My dander is up now, dadgummit!
"Put your life on hold for some indefinite period of time until we arbitrarily release you. Whatever you had planned to be doing isn't nearly as important as whatever we feel like doing. Oh, and it will cost you a few bucks, too" is hardly the consideration that citizens of a free country should expect from their government.
Whew! I feel better now!
As an American and a human being who cares about his fellow man, I'm not just happy but eager to do my civic duty. But that's no reason the court system has to treat me like chattel.
"Put your life on hold for some indefinite period of time until we arbitrarily release you. Whatever you had planned to be doing isn't nearly as important as whatever we feel like doing. Oh, and it will cost you a few bucks, too" is hardly the consideration that citizens of a free country should expect from their government.
I've been there. It's an appalling abuse of power to waste everybody's day while lawyers haggle. Let them squabble on their own time. If any business did this to its customers it would be out of business.
Whew! I feel better now!
Fedup
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
@Rianne, Oh no, I don’t think that’s a good idea. I did serve on one Jury once, one young woman kept going on about the lawyer, young WASP from Yale, she thought he was arrogant, I didn’t see it that way. We spent the whole afternoon tried to convince her to change her mind. Good thing we had somebody who did serve before and was rational.
I guess everyone judges people, whether they're attorneys or Uber drivers. I meant to express, attorneys get to grill every possible juror to see if they fit the agenda they're interested in. If it's a murder trial, the attorneys ask if possible jurors are for or against the death penalty. IMHO, the judicial system serves the judges and attorneys. Does justice really exist? Ok, I'm done, will probable get porky.
Big_Hitter
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
CardsFan
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
I agree, for the most part. I have traveled to countries, but not lived in them, where Justice is a joke. We have an imperfect system, but it is better than the alternative. The only time I was called was not a real inconvenience. I was employed, and the company paid me. But a lot of employers do not. If you were losing money by being there, it COULD influence how you vote (just get it over).
In my case, I have been called once in over 40 years of eligibility. There is something wrong with the system, when others get called every 2-3 years.
Maybe an "opt in"? Maybe we need more retirees serving?
Last edited:
Maybe we more retirees serving?
No, no no! What on earth makes you think retirees have time for that nonsense? Haven't you seen this thread?
http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f29/what-did-you-do-today-2018-version-90060.html
Fedup
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Maybe some retirees can volunteer to serve more.
I see that as a feature, not a bug. BOTH sides get to eliminate potential jurors they think could hurt their case. It's even-handed. And except for a small number of peremptory challenges, they have to state a reason for dismissing a juror that is acceptable to the judge. Not a bad system.
GravitySucks
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
I've served twice. No big inconvenience as megacorp made up the earnings difference once and I was retired the second time.
As for the suggestions, in NY we don't get recalled for years after serving (5 or 7), and we can volunteer for duty, so kind of a semipro juror pool can exist.
Last time I had a trip planned and they let me slide till the next month. Then I was illl and they let me slide another. The commisioner was pretty accommodating.
As for the suggestions, in NY we don't get recalled for years after serving (5 or 7), and we can volunteer for duty, so kind of a semipro juror pool can exist.
Last time I had a trip planned and they let me slide till the next month. Then I was illl and they let me slide another. The commisioner was pretty accommodating.
If you complain about other members using racial stereotypes you should refrain from using them yourself.
Fedup
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
I thought she was being racist myself. But this is against a lawyer, which had nothing to do with defendant, which I thought was on trial.
It’s not always white privilege as the press like you to believe.
Last edited:
Fedup
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
My point is people have their own bias. This was not apparent when the prosecutor was questioning jurors.
Big_Hitter
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
one of my old megas required us to remit the jury duty pay to our accounting department
one of my old megas required us to remit the jury duty pay to our accounting department
I w*rked for a little company that made us do that too. Seemed only fair since they paid our normal salary and had to do without us for those days.
Per my post #24 above:
Juror selection as usual. Jurors go home.
Trial with judge, and attorneys only... to be videotaped, and given to jurors.
In those jurisdictions where jurors can ask questions:
Also taped and given to jurors.
Jurors meet and decide.
Minimize costs, limits bullies.
Downsides?
Juror selection as usual. Jurors go home.
Trial with judge, and attorneys only... to be videotaped, and given to jurors.
In those jurisdictions where jurors can ask questions:
Also taped and given to jurors.
Jurors meet and decide.
Minimize costs, limits bullies.
Downsides?
Last edited:
Big_Hitter
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Lakewood90712
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,223
That is a good start.
In the Juror indoctrination /orientation, we are fed the malarkey that the Juror is so important. Then show it.
Start with a reasonable Per Diem ( at least double of the minimum wage , plus lunch ), the same preferential parking security scanning as court employees receive.
The operators of the court (County or state) will object to the cost. I submit that the cost just those 3 things, are not even a speck of dust, on the daily budget of the court system .
