Comments on: Jurors as Second-Class Citizens

By: Jens

Jens — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:39:27 +0000

Here in Germany, we don’t have juries or jurors, only lay judges. Their trial dates are scheduled far in advance, as far as I know … And you become that for 4 years or something like that.

5$ per day … That much less than what an election committee member gets here for one Sunday of work.

By: Alexandra de Shazo

Alexandra de Shazo — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:31:48 +0000

Unlike voting, jury duty is [at least in theory] a civic obligation rather than a civil right. Society has yet to declare that people who do not vote deserve a penalty.

Professional jurors are a terrible idea for the reason Moz mentioned. It would hardly burden the court system to accommodate jurors considering the back bends I’ve seen them do to accommodate attorney vacation schedules.

By: A.W.

A.W. — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:11:42 +0000

I have long jokingly given the formula for getting out of jury duty. Just say “fry ‘em” before they get five words out. Like here’s how it works.

Judge: Do you think you can impartially…

Me: Fry ‘em!

J: But, this isn’t a death penalty c–

M: I said, fry ‘em!

J: This is a contract dispute…

M: FRY ‘EM!

So that’s how it works. You’re welcome.

By: moz

moz — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 01:13:19 +0000

Tying this back to the post about professional jurors, one issue there is that it is randomly available part time work where jurors would have mixed incentives. If paid per trial they would have every incentive to game the system to produce short trials, but if on a salary they would try to avoid selection.

Permanent jurors also provide a convenient target for corruption, much as judges do now. Would we need to provide the same job security and salary as judges get? Or merely the same standards as legal aid lawyers (”jurors must be present, not necessarily awake”).

By: moz

moz — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 01:07:34 +0000

It would definitely be a good idea to start with the basic courtesies you mention, and perhaps treat jurors less as conscripts and more as voluntary participants. What’s the penalty for a juror who simply says “I have something else to do, I will not be attending” in a case like the one you describe? I’m assuming there is no way to get even monetary compensation, let alone (say) payment for everyone involved in order to re-schedule a wedding.

The political problem with paying people is that it would mean state recognition of the gross disparities in income. Should jurors all receive the same daily rate … as a senator? Or should the unemployed juror not be paid at all while the surgeon on the jury gets her usual daily rate? This is especially problematic for the self-employed as our “pay rate” is so hard to determine. For some of my friends a pro rata rate would not be fair, as they make very few sales a year and costing them a sale might easily halve their income for that year.

Interestingly, in Australia being on jury duty does exempt jurors from the reporting requirements and other obligations involved in getting unemployment benefits. Otherwise serving on the jury would be a clear breach of the requirement to be actively looking for work (and available to start).

By: J.

J. — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 00:23:58 +0000

Jurors should at least be paid the current minimum wage rate of the state at the time that they serve. That’s still underpaying them but it would be at least a slight raise from the current $5 a day that they get.

What’s really needed is an overall of the system to actually make it so people don’t have reason to loathe jury duty. I’m not saying people will ever like it but it wouldn’t take much to make it less undesireable.

By: Jason Mazzone

Jason Mazzone — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:25:01 +0000

It depends on whether you think serving on a jury is, like voting, akin to participation in public life or is, as your hypothetical juror sees it, a service to private parties who can’t solve their own problems. If it is the former and your juror is paid the value of her time, thereby becoming in essence hired help, she won’t be able to tell herself (and others) she is contributing to democratic government. As in voting, it is only when the cost involved exceeds the likely personal benefit that we can claim we have fulfilled a civic duty.