The injustice of jury duty
If you commit a crime, you have the right to a fair trial in which the court decides whether the government has the right to lock you up. But if you don’t commit a crime, the government has the right to “lock” you (in a jury room) against your will and force you to make a decision about whether the government has the right to lock someone up. another who has committed a crime. Is there a problem with this image?
Jury duty is essentially a community service for people who have not committed a crime.
Approximately half a million people a year in New York State alone are subject to jury duty. A large part of them do not want to serve. For many of them it is everything from a major inconvenience to physical difficulty and emotional torment. And all this for what? A voluntary jury system would work just as well, if not better, than a mandatory jury system.
We have a robust military despite the fact that it is voluntary and despite its inherent dangers. Why would anyone think that people would not apply to be a member of a jury if they were to volunteer?
We talk lip-service about the notion of giving a person accused of a crime a fair trial. But the current jury system is not fair. Does anyone know how many jurors in a given case are paying attention to court proceedings? Take, for example, someone who is going through a bad divorce. He worries about losing his children, losing his home, how to deal with lawyers, and how his estranged wife is strangling him financially and emotionally. All of this is not enough to get him out of jury duty.
So if someone in such a disheveled mood sits on a jury, what the hell do you think they might be thinking? The case in front of you? If I wanted to, I probably couldn’t!
What about someone with a very sick close relative? You are likely worried about doctors, treatments, hospitals, medications, etc. All of this is not enough to get him out of jury duty, either, as long as someone is caring for that relative. Can you get all of this out of your head to focus on a court case? Not very likely.
Then there are people with all kinds of ailments: chronic headaches, backaches, abdominal discomfort, flattening, muscle cramps, knee pain, etc. – which are not severe enough to incapacitate them, but intense enough to make their lives miserable. They must also serve as a jury. Sometimes these illnesses can be disturbing enough to prevent people from concentrating on simple everyday tasks. Are they going to be part of a jury and pay attention to what is going on? Let me rest!
It is not just adversity that interferes with one’s focus on other people’s affairs. People who run a business, for example, are ripped out of their lives and, in effect, told to stop thinking about their business and focus on a test. Really? Can people redirect their thoughts so easily? Who are we kidding?
And what about the people who are so furious about being forced to serve on juries that they just don’t give a damn what’s going on in the courtroom? I talked to a guy who was a juror on a murder trail. He said he didn’t care which way the verdict went, he just wanted to go home!
Is this justice? On what sick planet is this justice ???
An uninvolved jury is worse than an empty seat. Empty seats do not vote.
Isn’t it logical to assume that a juror who actually applied to serve would be more inclined to pay attention to a court proceeding than a juror who is forced to appear?
Why in the world are we forcing people to participate in the mandatory jury, which is nothing but irritating to many people and a great injustice for whom life can literally depend on the votes of the jurors who are physically in the room of the court but mentally in other places?
The mandatory jury system must be abolished! Being a member of the jury is only your “civic duty” because it is the law. If they repeal the law, it is no longer their civic duty. A voluntary jury system would be a win-win situation. The general public would be happier with him and the people on trial would eventually get true justice.
