Then go to the Jury Experiences site and tell everyone what happened to you. Or go there just to read some of the strange experiences others have had, such as the prospective juror whose "religion was number one", or the man who was called to serve on a jury — where the judge was his stepfather, or the trial of a person who hadn't shown up for jury duty being postponed because there weren't enough jurors.
And I was pleased, though I shouldn't have been, to learn that Minnesota jurors just got their pay cut to ten dollars a day.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
Posted by Jim Miller at July 24, 2008 04:51 PM | Email ThisI was never asked those questions. The case was about a King County jail guard accused of raping a female inmate. While I admire jail guards, I don't believe there can be consensual sex between a guard and a prisoner. The law says no, and common sense says that it can't be a real consensual situation. Neither guard nor prisoner are in a position to say yes.
The prosecutor wanted me, and the defense didn't. The questions asked were whether a crime can be committed against a criminal, and whether a criminal can ever tell the truth about anything. My answer was yes. My opinion that a criminal is capable of telling the truth made me too LIBERAL for the defense.
Paying a juror $12 per day is totally insulting.
Posted by: Brent Wolters on July 25, 2008 09:29 AMWhen I was called to serve on King County juries, I was paid ten dollars a day, and given a bus pass. (Those who drive get some money for mileage.) Kirkland Municipal Court paid me thirteen dollars a day, which works out to about the same total.
That's roughly the same -- in dollars -- that the state was paying a half century ago, when we were much poorer, and when that was worth much more in real terms.
If the state is going to conscript people for jury duty, then the state should pay those people at least a minimum wage.
It is true that many people get compensated by their employers for jury duty -- which makes jury duty, in effect, a tax on those employers and employees.
Jury duty can be especially hard on those who are not compensated. It may not matter much to those who are retired, like me, but it can be a real hardship on those who own small businesses or those who work at low wage jobs and are not compensated by their employer.
An example: The first time I was called by King County, I saw a cleaning woman in the jury pool who was complaining that she could not afford to take this time off. It is disgraceful for the state of Washington and King County to treat this woman, and others like her, this way. (I have sometimes thought since that I should have checked her story as far as I could -- and then taken up a collection for her.)
And just so no one misunderstands, let me repeat a point I have made before: For me, being called for jury service is a plus, since it lets me see how our courts operate, from the bottom. But I can still sympathize with the many jurors for whom service on a jury is a hardship.
@9: Sadly for the judicial system and for us as a society, those who have the most to offer get themselves excluded and we are left with those without the wherewithall, the cleverness the intellect to do so.
"The most to offer"? Someone on a jury is not there to be an expert, just to weigh the evidence in a case and provide their opinion. There are rules set up to exclude the people that counsel feels would be biased in one direction or another, which certainly have their downside, but I'm *eagerly* awaiting your alternative to get the people with "the most to offer" in these positions.
Posted by: demo kid on July 25, 2008 12:29 PMBut heck, isn't this all endemic to our whole system? Voter turnout in the 2004 election was 64%, and of those 125 million people, I'm betting that not all of them were voting according to a reasoned, rational approach to it. Our notion of civics is changing, but participation in fundamental institutions is not improving.
Posted by: demo kid on July 25, 2008 03:00 PM"This needs fixing. Along with the general fixes of tort reform, I'm at the point where I think we need a few radical changes, namely: A) overhaul the jury system. No more random laymen off the street - instead, consider the idea of "professional jurors" who are trained in the court process and procedure, are taught jury instructions, and are heavily screened to ensure ACTUAL impartiality.)"
Posted by: AT on July 25, 2008 05:57 PMNo matter. I think that the idea sounds okay enough to discuss, but there are downsides associated with regular folks losing that accessibility. If you're being tried by people whose job it is to be a juror, you're going to have to deal with the fact that this is power associated with a fixed group of people.... and that has definite disadvantages.
Posted by: demo kid on July 25, 2008 07:19 PM$69 dollars per year per person...I don't think so!
Do the math per 1,000,000 households in their taxing area
It comes to $850 more out of each households pocket every year for 15 years, more likely as it is now being seen, forever
Say Hell no to this boondoggle,
Even Ron Sims said no because of wanting 180 mil for buses which are needed now.
17 Billion stated, but more likely times 3 or 4 times this for stupid light rail which will be finished in 15 years.
No damn thanks!
It would astound you
s
Posted by: gs on July 25, 2008 07:35 PMActually, there's a lot of good discussions there. Plus, it's convenient. None of the work needed to program my own website, with only half of the losers of myspace/livejournal. Granted, you have to wave off the swarms of desperate freaks that have resorted to dating on the internet - but all in all, not a bad place for a blog if you ignore the whole "online personal ads" part of it.
You should try it out. I'll be happy to kick the intellectual crap out of you anytime you want.
there are downsides associated with regular folks losing that accessibility.
It's interesting that you consider "impartial verdicts" and "appropriate sentencing/awards" to be a downside.
Regular folks are too stupid and emotional to be trusted to carry out their job with impartiality. Want proof? Look at any celebrity trial. Look at the public reaction - OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson, Kobe Bryant, Martha Stewart, Scott Peterson, Michael Vick, Wesley Snipes, Paris Hilton. All of America watches these cases with wide eyes, and they're all convinced that these people are guilty - how? They don't have any facts, they don't have any court briefs, they've attended no depositions, they read no transcripts, they've examined no evidence, they've heard no testimony. They know absolutely NOTHING about the case other than the name of the accused and what he's charged with. And yet they, in all their infinite knowledge, are somehow able to make up their minds about that person's guilt or innocence with absolute certainty. AND EVEN WHEN THEY ARE PROVEN NOT GUILTY, the public, our "peers" STILL think that you know better - despite having NO BASIS WHATSOEVER for these claims.
Yea, these prejudiced reactionaries are exactly who should be the arbiters of guilt or innocence. Right. Uh huh.
Posted by: AT on July 25, 2008 09:19 PMOne of my favorite topics.
Judges often instruct juries that if they agree that the defendant broke the law as the judge defines it, then they MUST vote to convict. But this is false. One of the checks and balances on the power of government is that juries may fail to convict a defendant if they think the law is unjust. They not only judge the facts of the case, they judge the law as well.
This was intended by the Founders as another way to protect the people against bad laws.
But judges hate that, and misinform juries all the time.
Next time you are on a jury, remember jury nullification.
It is one of our rights.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on July 25, 2008 10:15 PMI think it is a minor form of slavery.
What's wrong with paying a prevailing wage, selecting at random (as we do) but allowing anyone to opt-out for any reason?
You wouldn't get professional jurors because of the random calling, and only people who wanted to be there would go.
If they had to pay a prevailing wage, then they would have a disincentive to waste so much of people's time.
But they have slave labor now. There is little incentive for the system to change.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on July 25, 2008 10:20 PMI'll point you towards my friend's website on Hello Kitty Island Adventure, then. It's a remarkable defense of the Keynesian counter-cyclical welfare state.
You should try it out. I'll be happy to kick the intellectual crap out of you anytime you want.
You'll be bringing a knife to a gun fight, but sure.
They know absolutely NOTHING about the case other than the name of the accused and what he's charged with. And yet they, in all their infinite knowledge, are somehow able to make up their minds about that person's guilt or innocence with absolute certainty. AND EVEN WHEN THEY ARE PROVEN NOT GUILTY, the public, our "peers" STILL think that you know better - despite having NO BASIS WHATSOEVER for these claims.
Well, that would be troublesome for a fair trial! Unless, of course, the actual jury sits through the trial.
What is problematic, and what you haven't addressed, is the fact that professional jurors would be a distinct group, and a group with power. If you're turning this into a profession, you also run the risk of giving that group a monopoly over the knowledge used to mak e those decisions. You may be lauding the impartiality, but I'm envisioning chaos once the public disagrees with a decision, since there would be no sense that the decision would be made "by the people".
Similarly, how would these professional jurors be chosen? Would you elect them? Would you have the state choose them? (Would voir dire apply at trial?) I'd be very interested in learning why you think that wouldn't be a distinctly political process...
This was intended by the Founders as another way to protect the people against bad laws. But judges hate that, and misinform juries all the time. Next time you are on a jury, remember jury nullification. It is one of our rights.
Looking... looking... can't seem to find it in the Bill of Rights. Perhaps you would enlighten me?
Forcing people to do jury duty is a form of conscription. I think it is a minor form of slavery.
Figures... conservatives call any case where they need to get off their butts "slavery"...
Should we pay you to vote as well?
Posted by: demo kid on July 26, 2008 09:41 AMWhat is problematic, and what you haven't addressed, is the fact that professional jurors would be a distinct group, and a group with power.
How is that any different from the cops, or judges, or the military?
If you're turning this into a profession, you also run the risk of giving that group a monopoly over the knowledge used to mak e those decisions.
How do you figure?
You may be lauding the impartiality, but I'm envisioning chaos once the public disagrees with a decision, since there would be no sense that the decision would be made "by the people".
Maybe it shouldn't BE made by the people. The emotional, the reactionary, the partial people. As evidenced, they're not doing that great a job, are they.
Someone on my journal made a point about the jury of ones peers:
Another point I'd like to make, I've always been bothered by the phrase "jury of my peers". Look, I know I'm no genuis, but I'm a damn sight brighter than the center of the bell curve, I understand subtlety, motives and nuance. I'm logical, rational, and I know how to keep my emotions out of my decisions. If I'm ever on trial, I'd like a jury of *my* peers. Unless I did it. Then I deserve to burn.
The problem with a jury of our peers, demo kid, is that our peers are idiots and can't be trusted to be rational and impartial.
Similarly, how would these professional jurors be chosen? Would you elect them? Would you have the state choose them?
Make it a profession. Add it to the jobs you can do in the court system, alongside lawyers, judges, paralegals, court clerks, etc. It's something you could do with your CrimJ or PoliSci degree. People apply for it like any other job, and are extensively screened as they would be for any other sensitive position.
Elections would be retarded. The fact that we have elections for judges as it is, is retarded - because what are we electing them on? The hopes that they'll provide more favorable verdicts, that they'll "interpret the Constitution" the way we want? Kind of undermines the idea of impartiality, don't you think?
You make an attempt to skirt around the points made, by overcomplicating and politicizing them, but the point remains uncontested - dragging in idiot laymen off the street obviously isn't working the way it's supposed to.
Figures... conservatives call any case where they need to get off their butts "slavery"...
Mm. So tell us, how do YOU describe State-enforced compulsory service you're forced to do against your will under threat of legal repercussion?
Posted by: AT on July 26, 2008 12:06 PMIf twelve random people off the street would decide that it is unreasonable for the police to smash into someone's home at 3am because an anonymous informant thought they might have an ounce of weed, then such a search is unreasonable. Judges have been taught to find 'reasonableness' in many places it doesn't really exist. Juries have not had such training, and I would consider that lack to be a good thing.
Some people say that it's wrong for a jury to want to know the punishment for a crime, or to have such information affect their decision. I would argue that it is very much the role of a jury to consider such factors. Among other things most crimes implicitly require some level of mens rea (criminal intent). The more severe the punishment, the higher the prosecutor's burden of showing intent.
For example, suppose you were on a jury, judging a person who was accused of "Obstructing a Fire Crew". This individual had run out of gas on a busy road in front of a fire station; the driveway was the only place the person was able to put the vehicle without it obstructing traffic. After putting the vehicle on the driveway, the person walked half a mile to the nearest gas station and bought a can of gas.
If that were the only information you had, would you convict or acquit? Or would you want to know the level of punishment before making that decision?
IMHO, if the person was facing, e.g., a $75 traffic ticket, a guilty verdict would seem fair. The person shouldn't have run out of gas, probably should have done something other than putting the vehicle in the driveway, and almost certainly should have sought the attention of station personnel rather than leaving the car unattended. Lapses in judgment that should not go unpunished, but aren't outrageously severe.
On the other hand, if the person would face a twenty-year prison term, I would vote without hesitation to acquit. A twenty-year prison term may be appropriate if somebody deliberately obstructs a fire crew, but the defendant here would not have acted with anything near the level of intent required to justify such a sentence.
Too bad judges and lawyers would rather argue for ages about issues than simply ask ordinary people. It seems ordinary people often have a lot more common sense than the "experts".
Posted by: supercat on July 26, 2008 03:12 PM@26: I'll just skip over your ad hominems and allow them to undermine your credibility and intellectual integrity on their own.
You say "ad hominem attack", I say "mildly amusing joke". :) What, conservatives can't take a joke? You try to write something serious on a website devoted to quizzes and "swarms of desperate freaks that have resorted to dating on the internet", and you don't see something funny about that?
How is that any different from the cops, or judges, or the military?
It isn't! And that's exactly my point. You're centralizing the power that is held by the people now, and granting it to a specific profession. Even aside from the fact that you would need to find thousands upon thousands of people to serve in this capacity (which would, of course, drastically expand the size of government), these people would, you know, talk to each other. There would be training programs for them at universities, they would have conferences, and they would come up with ways of making decisions that would be distinctly different than how you or I would serve as jurors.
And, as icecat mentions (correctly), is that a good thing? I'm not one for the type of extreme individualism that conservatives espouse, but throwing the common sense of regular people aside for technical opinions of specialists in this case doesn't seem completely reasonable. You're never going to eliminate bias or gaming of the system... and the second that these jurors come up with a decision that doesn't seem reasonable to lay people, there would be a massive outcry against this system.
Maybe it shouldn't BE made by the people. The emotional, the reactionary, the partial people. As evidenced, they're not doing that great a job, are they.
...
The problem with a jury of our peers, demo kid, is that our peers are idiots and can't be trusted to be rational and impartial.
Slippery slope, my friend. Perhaps the role of choosing presidents or representatives shouldn't be made by the people, either? I mean, they did elect both Jimmy Carter and George Bush.
This is an endemic problem in democracies, though. As I think I mentioned before, Churchill famously said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all others tried. And it's specifically for the reason that you mention, although I'll reword it and say that the electorate is not necessary wise or well-informed. But the second that you pull power away from the people, you're compromising their freedom and handing power to the government.
Elections would be retarded. The fact that we have elections for judges as it is, is retarded - because what are we electing them on? The hopes that they'll provide more favorable verdicts, that they'll "interpret the Constitution" the way we want? Kind of undermines the idea of impartiality, don't you think?
But you're not making the case that alternatives are any better. If judges or these jurors are appointed, what prevents them from being political appointments? There's no guarantee of impartiality... you're just trading one set of problems for another.
You make an attempt to skirt around the points made, by overcomplicating and politicizing them, but the point remains uncontested - dragging in idiot laymen off the street obviously isn't working the way it's supposed to.
Again, nor is dragging "idiot laymen" off the street to vote... but we still do it anyway. Why?
And I should note that as many people have said before, the plural of anecdote is not data. Gripe about individual cases all you want, but you haven't proved that there is an endemic problem with the jury trials themselves... just the implementation.
Mm. So tell us, how do YOU describe State-enforced compulsory service you're forced to do against your will under threat of legal repercussion?
A responsibility. One that shouldn't be onerous, but one that should still exist in a democratic society. Assuming that you get all the rights afforded in the Constitution without any responsibility to support those rights is pretty reprehensible.
Posted by: demo kid on July 26, 2008 04:09 PMIcecat? Who's Icecat? I'm SuperCat, 38, male, widowed, conservative. I've never gone by 'Icecat'.
BTW, I finally added to my blog...
I'm not one for the type of extreme individualism that conservatives espouse, but throwing the common sense of regular people aside for technical opinions of specialists in this case doesn't seem completely reasonable.
A collective is nothing more nor less than a group of individuals. The notion of "collective good" is really a shorthand for "the good of those people favored by those in power"; further, if people have a "collective right" to do something, that means they can have someone do the action in question on their behalf, whether or not they really want it.
Slippery slope, my friend. Perhaps the role of choosing presidents or representatives shouldn't be made by the people, either?
The Founders thought Representatives should be chosen by the people, but not the President nor Senators. Even when voting for Representatives, the franchise would have in many cases been reserved to property owners (who presumably paid the bulk of the taxes).
A responsibility. One that shouldn't be onerous, but one that should still exist in a democratic society. Assuming that you get all the rights afforded in the Constitution without any responsibility to support those rights is pretty reprehensible.
Well put. It is true that jury duty represents a sort of tax on the people selected (or, in some cases, on their employers), but since taxes are legitimate I don't see a particular problem at least in concept. The actual implementation is probably not optimal (I would suggest that people chosen for jury duty should have their taxes proportionally offset by their service, so that someone who pays twice as much in taxes would receive twice as much effective pay for jury duty). Nonetheless, I think having a jury chosen from the population is critical if the right to a jury trial is to have any meaning.
Posted by: supercat on July 27, 2008 10:30 AM