Comments on: On Jury Duty: Day #1

By: Tru

Tru — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:54:31 +0000

If we could find a way around the possible corruption issues in a professional jury system, I would definitely prefer that. As to who would want the job, I would. I’ve never been called for jury duty, but I have worked a one day temp job as a practice jury. We were paid and fed well. It was exceedingly interesting!

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:55:34 +0000

Why not go a step further and elect a jury pool (since we elect many judges)? They wouldn’t have to be full-time. Make it like the states that have “citizen legislatures” with guys who have regular jobs most of the time, but spend a few months serving in their elected roles.

You could keep the same voir dire process, eliminate forcing people to do something they’re not interested in doing, and have term limits to avoid lifetime professional jurors.

I’ve never thought about this before… am I missing any glaring problems with this idea?

By: Ed Hamilton

Ed Hamilton — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 05:24:38 +0000

Instead of professional juries, they should have a different system of selecting jurors. A judge who has been briefed on the case should select an intelligent and impartial jury, and not let the attorneys be able to boot people off who are too smart to be conned.

By: Barbara

Barbara — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 04:15:57 +0000

I agree with Bill T. as well. As to Ed’s comment, most defense attorneys do their level best to dismiss anyone with an education, i.e., teachers. As a result, I’ve only served on one jury. We were diverse as to age, sex, race, education, etc. I was impressed by how seriously everyone took their responsibility as a juror.

By: Ed

Ed — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:05:44 +0000

As an attorney I love the concept of professional jurors because it would eliminate one of the biggest headaches in the system: idiots in the jury box.

However, realistically it would be next to impossible to protect from abuses of such a system (random nature of jury assignment, preventing corruption/bribes, etc).

A socially more distasteful (given our PC times) but potentially fruitful middle ground is minimum educational requirements for potential jurors. It shrinks the pool a bit, but most of what is taken out of the pool should have been caught by a filter anyhow and it preserves the randmomness, etc.

By: Molly

Molly — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:46:48 +0000

Bill T., I agree wholeheartedly.

Also, who on earth would WANT the job of professional juror? The small cases are boring, and in the big cases, a person’s life is in your hands. I would not want the kind of person who enjoys that to be the one deciding my fate!

By: Bill T.

Bill T. — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:21:25 +0000

Professional jurors would just be a target for post-trial litigation. They’d spend just as much time getting sued as they would hearing cases. Unless you’re proposing some sort of indemnification against lawsuits.

Also, the possibility for corruption would be significantly greater if all jurors were pulled from the same pool every time.

Additionally, you would have a whole profession who had to remain unaffected by the world around them on a consistent basis. What happens when it comes time to vote for President, for example?

By: Lauren

Lauren — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:16:49 +0000

Wow, Kara,Years ago I was called to jury duty right after I was out of work too…think they check the unemployment rolls for candidates?

By: Pointy-Hatted Geek

Pointy-Hatted Geek — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 19:58:24 +0000

I don’t know about anyone else, but there are a lot of common folk out there that I really wouldn’t want to decide my fate. That sort of thing should be left to people who know what they’re doing.

By: Kara

Kara — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 19:38:42 +0000

It’s sad but true; it seems like most average citizens try to get out of jury duty once they’re summoned. Jury pay rarely equals what they’d earn at work. So the pool is rarely filled with “our peers.

The one time I was called for jury duty was when I’d been recently laid off from work. We jurors had to show up daily and wait to see if any cases would actually proceed to trial. In the meantime, our minds couldn’t be prejudiced, so there was no TV or radio in the jury room (lest something regarding a pending case be mentioned), nor no recent newspapers or magazines. We had to amuse ourselves with 10-year-old copies of Reader’s Digest and jigsaw puzzles. Oh, and we had to wear appropriate attire on top of it (no jeans, T-shirts, etc.).

Good times. For $15.00 per half day.