Jury duty, protest of
May 24, 2006 7:25 AM Subscribe
I have enough doubts regarding the integrity of the American criminal justice system that I'm uncomfortable with the prospect of jury duty. Advice?
First of all, I'm scheduled to appear this Tuesday. And it's a Cuyahoga County (Ohio) court.
Another AskMe suggests that merely ignoring it is a possibility. If I called and explained myself what would they do? If I show up, when would be appropriate times to mention this? What might the response be then? If I'm chosen to deliberate in a trial what are my options and what are the likely consequences? The prospect of a contempt charge or an extended contentious jury deliberation are intimidating enough that I might cave.
First of all, I'm scheduled to appear this Tuesday. And it's a Cuyahoga County (Ohio) court.
Another AskMe suggests that merely ignoring it is a possibility. If I called and explained myself what would they do? If I show up, when would be appropriate times to mention this? What might the response be then? If I'm chosen to deliberate in a trial what are my options and what are the likely consequences? The prospect of a contempt charge or an extended contentious jury deliberation are intimidating enough that I might cave.
You're going to go through a process where each lawyer gets to explore your thoughts regarding this case in particular and law in general. You'll probably be thrown out lightning fast if you answer their questions truthfully.
But I agree that you would do far more good by sitting on a jury, gaining an understanding of the inner workings of the jury process (which are fascinating), and speaking up for your convictions in deliberation, than by opting out.
posted by Miko at 7:34 AM on May 24, 2006
But I agree that you would do far more good by sitting on a jury, gaining an understanding of the inner workings of the jury process (which are fascinating), and speaking up for your convictions in deliberation, than by opting out.
posted by Miko at 7:34 AM on May 24, 2006
Show up when you're called. If you actually get called in for a case, you'll have to go through voir dire, which is nothing but a screening process. That's the time to express any doubts you may have about your ability to serve. The judge will send you home, and you'll have nothing more to worry about.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:34 AM on May 24, 2006
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:34 AM on May 24, 2006
I think it's important that people who disagree with the system take the opportunity to influence it whenever possible. After all, a 'jury of your peers' shouldn't mean a 'jury of people who believe in the infallibility of the justice system'.
(As an aside, you should also investigate the legality of jury nullification in your state.)
posted by Jairus at 7:35 AM on May 24, 2006
(As an aside, you should also investigate the legality of jury nullification in your state.)
posted by Jairus at 7:35 AM on May 24, 2006
If you have doubts about the integrity of the system, don't you counterbalance that by participating?
Maybe I don't understand your question, though. If your question is just about getting out of jury duty, I don't want to go off topic. What exactly are your doubts?
posted by voidcontext at 7:36 AM on May 24, 2006
Maybe I don't understand your question, though. If your question is just about getting out of jury duty, I don't want to go off topic. What exactly are your doubts?
posted by voidcontext at 7:36 AM on May 24, 2006
Just served on a jury a few weeks ago and was impressed at out seriously everyone took their responsibility. If you have concerns about our system, ignoring it won't make it any better. Serve, get an idea of how it really works (and not what you see on tv) and then you can criticize it from a position of knowledge.
posted by beowulf573 at 7:36 AM on May 24, 2006
posted by beowulf573 at 7:36 AM on May 24, 2006
Could you be more specific about your objection to serving? Unless you're opposed to the "trial by jury" aspect, I'm not sure how trying to get out of jury duty would help anyone.
posted by justkevin at 7:36 AM on May 24, 2006
posted by justkevin at 7:36 AM on May 24, 2006
IF you get far enough in the juror selection process to even get in the courtroom, just be honest and tell the judge/counsel your thoughts. It is far more likely that you will show up and spend all day in the courthouse watching boring documentaries on the juror selection process or reading a book than be empaneled.
(IAAL, IANYL, etc., etc.)
I personally think it's really crappy when people avoid the juror process and then complain about our criminal justice system. Kind of like people who refuse to vote but then complain about elected officials. Just my opinion, though.
posted by MeetMegan at 7:37 AM on May 24, 2006
(IAAL, IANYL, etc., etc.)
I personally think it's really crappy when people avoid the juror process and then complain about our criminal justice system. Kind of like people who refuse to vote but then complain about elected officials. Just my opinion, though.
posted by MeetMegan at 7:37 AM on May 24, 2006
Blowing it off is a bad idea. A warrant could be issued against you if you do. Even if the police don't show up to arrest you, eventually this will catch up with you if you're caught for some other thing like a traffic offense.
As Faint of Butt says, if you even get to the stage of voir dire, that's your moment to speak up and you'll probably be dismissed.
posted by briank at 7:40 AM on May 24, 2006
As Faint of Butt says, if you even get to the stage of voir dire, that's your moment to speak up and you'll probably be dismissed.
posted by briank at 7:40 AM on May 24, 2006
Getting out of jury duty by ignoring it will get you fined/jailed, at least here in VA. Getting out of jury duty by being an ass or presenting yourself as the sort of person no sane jurist would allow on a jury might work. I agree that you should just do it, though. Here's an article discussing some of a jury's often overlooked powers. IANAL, of course.
posted by mragreeable at 7:40 AM on May 24, 2006
posted by mragreeable at 7:40 AM on May 24, 2006
Another AskMe suggests that merely ignoring it is a possibility.
No, it isn't.
posted by cribcage at 7:41 AM on May 24, 2006
No, it isn't.
posted by cribcage at 7:41 AM on May 24, 2006
Go. The best means for you to improve the integrity of the American criminal justice system is to participate in it. And if your experience is like the last time I served, you won't even be called and you'll have $12.83 in your pocket to boot!
posted by sexymofo at 7:45 AM on May 24, 2006
posted by sexymofo at 7:45 AM on May 24, 2006
If you don't want to serve, show up and be loopy. Either side will weed you out in the initial rounds.
posted by Mr. Six at 7:48 AM on May 24, 2006
posted by Mr. Six at 7:48 AM on May 24, 2006
Now's your chance to guarantee that at least one trial will have all the integrity you can give it. Go to jury duty and be fucking well proud of it.
posted by ook at 7:51 AM on May 24, 2006
posted by ook at 7:51 AM on May 24, 2006
I, too, had (and still have) my reservations about our "justice" system. However, a couple years ago I served on a jury and it was an eye-opening, educational experience- I'm so glad I was selected.
Also, I got to be the foreperson during deliberations (so I got to be really bossy) ANDDDD... best of all, I helped put a rapist in jail.
posted by elisabeth r at 7:51 AM on May 24, 2006
Also, I got to be the foreperson during deliberations (so I got to be really bossy) ANDDDD... best of all, I helped put a rapist in jail.
posted by elisabeth r at 7:51 AM on May 24, 2006
If you have objections that will hinder your ability to objectively assess a case based on its facts and applicable law, the right time to tell someone that is when you are called for a case. Lawyers will ask you questions trying to figure out of you're going to be a "good juror" [where good means favorable if at all possible to their side] and objections to the entire process would be best explained there.
At the end of the day, it depends what your point is. Do you want to protest the system? If so then by all means don't show up, risk getting in trouble and then using the resulting legal kerfuffle to make your points. If you just want to avoid having to serve on a jury, then go through the process up to the point where you might have to do that and states your objections. I'm not really rah rah on the criminal/legal justice system myself, but I showed up for jury duty (which in Seattle was two days showing up early and getting sent home early) and it wound up being not a horrible experience. I learned something. I didn't have to sit on a jury [and I was fully expecting to have to get empaneled and say something borderline-embarassing about how I pretty much couldn't send someone to prison etc etc] and I felt like I'd participated as I felt was appropriate. I didn't feel like shirking the whole thing, just appearing at jury duty AS me, not as some go-go-America version of me.
Keep in mind that your concerns about the system will not really endear you to the rest of the people in the system who you have to make your case to, so try to be at least a little politic about explaining yourself and indicating that you are not just doing this because you are lazy or some fringe radical element (unless you are those things, in whoch case be truthful but not hopeful).
Jury duty is not really one of those times where there is room for your critique of the sytem. Figuring out how you can participate genuinely, in whatever form that takes based on whatever your objections are, is how you should move forward.
posted by jessamyn at 7:52 AM on May 24, 2006
At the end of the day, it depends what your point is. Do you want to protest the system? If so then by all means don't show up, risk getting in trouble and then using the resulting legal kerfuffle to make your points. If you just want to avoid having to serve on a jury, then go through the process up to the point where you might have to do that and states your objections. I'm not really rah rah on the criminal/legal justice system myself, but I showed up for jury duty (which in Seattle was two days showing up early and getting sent home early) and it wound up being not a horrible experience. I learned something. I didn't have to sit on a jury [and I was fully expecting to have to get empaneled and say something borderline-embarassing about how I pretty much couldn't send someone to prison etc etc] and I felt like I'd participated as I felt was appropriate. I didn't feel like shirking the whole thing, just appearing at jury duty AS me, not as some go-go-America version of me.
Keep in mind that your concerns about the system will not really endear you to the rest of the people in the system who you have to make your case to, so try to be at least a little politic about explaining yourself and indicating that you are not just doing this because you are lazy or some fringe radical element (unless you are those things, in whoch case be truthful but not hopeful).
Jury duty is not really one of those times where there is room for your critique of the sytem. Figuring out how you can participate genuinely, in whatever form that takes based on whatever your objections are, is how you should move forward.
posted by jessamyn at 7:52 AM on May 24, 2006
Having just served, here's my take. You have to show up. If you actually get called for a trial, you'll go through the process of voire dire, which is basically where they vet people for the jury. You'll be asked a series of questions that will be used to indicate if you are not fit for that particuar case (usually they deal with questions about the case and if you have any extreme opinions on the topic of the case). Each possible juror will be called into a room with the judge, the lawyers and the involved parties and you'll go over the voire dire sheet (you answer questions on the sheet). One of the questions will probably be something along the lines of, "Is there are other reason that this would be a hardship" or if you will be able to make a fair and unbiased judgement on the case. At this point, you may explain your views and articulate that as a result of your doubt regarding the legal system, you do not feel that you will be a fair and impartial judge for this case. The point is not that you have doubts, the point is whether or not those doubts will seriously impair your ability to be a fair and impartial "judge" on the case.
All said on preview, but here's my personal opinion on jury duty: it sucks and no one wants to do it and some people have doubts about the system. But there is a chance that one day you or someone you know/love is going to be involved in a case with a jury. Your serving is kind of like karma or the golden rule I guess.
For Jairus, I'd completely disagree. For the case I was just on, one guy had such a severe mistrust of the legal system and the police force that we ended up with a hung jury on a guy that was clearly guilty. His refusal to reason or deliberate based on his doubts made it awful. We later found out that we could've had him removed. You don't have to think the system is infalliable, but don't get on a jury to make a statement. That just makes the system operate even worse because nothing can get accomplished. Again, it all comes down to whether or not the doubts will impair your ability to impartially deliberate on the case. If you truly think that's the case, explain it and you'll probably get off.
posted by ml98tu at 7:53 AM on May 24, 2006
All said on preview, but here's my personal opinion on jury duty: it sucks and no one wants to do it and some people have doubts about the system. But there is a chance that one day you or someone you know/love is going to be involved in a case with a jury. Your serving is kind of like karma or the golden rule I guess.
For Jairus, I'd completely disagree. For the case I was just on, one guy had such a severe mistrust of the legal system and the police force that we ended up with a hung jury on a guy that was clearly guilty. His refusal to reason or deliberate based on his doubts made it awful. We later found out that we could've had him removed. You don't have to think the system is infalliable, but don't get on a jury to make a statement. That just makes the system operate even worse because nothing can get accomplished. Again, it all comes down to whether or not the doubts will impair your ability to impartially deliberate on the case. If you truly think that's the case, explain it and you'll probably get off.
posted by ml98tu at 7:53 AM on May 24, 2006
This is not just an idle question because it's significant for the advice I would give: What, exactly, is your problem with the criminal justice system? Is it with the whole system, or just with certain aspects of it? Is it with the notion of trial by jury (if not, shouldn't you want to be on the jury?) Do you even know if this would be a criminal trial (if not, it's probably just as likely to be civil)?
But that's all preamble. We live in a society. We have certain rights, and certain responsibilities (although people don't like to be reminded of the responsibilities). One of the most basic functions of any orderly society is a system of justice. There's no guarantee of perfection, and over hundreds of years the legal system has certainly developed via an inscrutable hodgepodge of conflicting policy considerations, but there's a good argument to be made that the system's about the best we can hope for.
Jury duty is one small way in which you get to participate in the actual governance of society. Look at it as an honor, not a curse. And think of all those totalitarian regimes where the notion of a "jury," or even a "trial" is scoffed at.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:55 AM on May 24, 2006
But that's all preamble. We live in a society. We have certain rights, and certain responsibilities (although people don't like to be reminded of the responsibilities). One of the most basic functions of any orderly society is a system of justice. There's no guarantee of perfection, and over hundreds of years the legal system has certainly developed via an inscrutable hodgepodge of conflicting policy considerations, but there's a good argument to be made that the system's about the best we can hope for.
Jury duty is one small way in which you get to participate in the actual governance of society. Look at it as an honor, not a curse. And think of all those totalitarian regimes where the notion of a "jury," or even a "trial" is scoffed at.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:55 AM on May 24, 2006
"By obliging men to turn their attention to other affairs than their own, it rubs off that private selfishness which is the rust of society."
--Alexis de Tocqueville
posted by pardonyou? at 8:05 AM on May 24, 2006 [2 favorites]
--Alexis de Tocqueville
posted by pardonyou? at 8:05 AM on May 24, 2006 [2 favorites]
There's more to the criminal justice system than the jury. You can have all the misgivings you want about the former, but the latter is one of the ways we responsibly participate in society, and it should not be something to avoid.
I've been called a 1/2 dozen times, never served. I did serve on a grand jury for a year, 1/2 of whcih I was the foreman. It is informative, and one has a chance to be influential and assure fairness, at least to the degree that you are fair.
If you are like most Americans, your impressions of the system are what you see on TV. Reality is different, and you won't know exactly how until you experience it.
posted by FauxScot at 8:08 AM on May 24, 2006
I've been called a 1/2 dozen times, never served. I did serve on a grand jury for a year, 1/2 of whcih I was the foreman. It is informative, and one has a chance to be influential and assure fairness, at least to the degree that you are fair.
If you are like most Americans, your impressions of the system are what you see on TV. Reality is different, and you won't know exactly how until you experience it.
posted by FauxScot at 8:08 AM on May 24, 2006
Jury duty isn't optional, and I find it rather offensive that people take such a flippant attitude toward one of the very few obligations you have as a citizen just because you have issues with it. This is part of your social contract. If you really feel the way you do, then you should be thinking about renouncing your citizenship, not skipping jury duty.
posted by mkultra at 8:08 AM on May 24, 2006
posted by mkultra at 8:08 AM on May 24, 2006
Report for duty. Your doubts about the criminal justice system may even be addressed before the voir dire. In PA, the initial pool of jurors called for a case is weeded out to some extent with questions by the judge about hardship, having been a recent victim of a violent crime, and something like "would you be inclined to automatically believe/not believe the testimony of an officer of the law over a witness or defendant?" (Or maybe this is all considered voir dire? It was before we were brought out individually to be screened by the lawyers.)
Uh, the guy who answered every question with a resounding yes because he clearly wanted to get out of duty? He got himself called into contempt right then and there, basically for being a dick. Those who honestly answered the questions and indicated that their objectivity was flawed were let go graciously.
posted by desuetude at 8:11 AM on May 24, 2006
Uh, the guy who answered every question with a resounding yes because he clearly wanted to get out of duty? He got himself called into contempt right then and there, basically for being a dick. Those who honestly answered the questions and indicated that their objectivity was flawed were let go graciously.
posted by desuetude at 8:11 AM on May 24, 2006
Response by poster: First of all thanks everyone. Great comments so far.
I'm not ignoring the value of the civic duty. (Also, it has nothing specifically to do with jury duty. It's just that jury duty is my only contact with the criminal justice system.) It is that by showing up, participating in a jury, deliberating seriously and voting in accordance with the laws and judge's instructions, I fear that I'll be actively reinforcing an unacceptable status quo.
I don't think that the problem can be solved by working diligently on individual cases or by making small corrections to the system. It's easy to acknowledge a problem in the system but then sit for a specific trial and know confidently that the defendant is almost certainly guilty and vote accordingly. The problem is that this keeps the system working just well enough to protect just barely enough people (Which people? Guess.) so that nothing changes.
For instance, I could send someone to jail when they should get rehabilitation. Or I could send someone to jail for a term far out of proportion to the nature of their crime due to harsh minimum sentencing laws. Or I could send someone with serious (serious) mental and emotional problems to jail when part of the of blame must lay on society for failing to provide a safety net. Or for failing to provide adequate opportunities in the first place. Or I could send a guilty person to jail knowing full well that a person in different circumstances (race, income, class, etc...) would have received a far lesser sentence. Or would likely have never been prosecuted at all. Or is less likely to even have been caught in the first place. Or I could send someone to jail because they aren't getting adequate representation...
I'm not even claiming that I doubt the integrity of the prosecutors. I'm sure they are mostly law abiding and ethical. I do wonder if there's a culture at work that pressures them to cut corners, and do it unknowingly at that.
All of the answers have been helpful. Even those that question my motives. Honestly, I question them myself. Thanks again. Anyway, I hope you understand that I'm not saying ,"The system is broken and I'm not interested in participating." My intention is more like ,"The system is fundamentally flawed and more of the same won't help. What else can I do (without ending up in jail)?"
I'm hoping that my experience will be similar to desuetude's (and one other commenter that I sort of remember and probably more now... lots of answers.. hard to keep up while writing my response). But I'm still interested in more confirmation of my choices, the potential consequences and the corresponding likelihoods.
posted by stuart_s at 8:46 AM on May 24, 2006
I'm not ignoring the value of the civic duty. (Also, it has nothing specifically to do with jury duty. It's just that jury duty is my only contact with the criminal justice system.) It is that by showing up, participating in a jury, deliberating seriously and voting in accordance with the laws and judge's instructions, I fear that I'll be actively reinforcing an unacceptable status quo.
I don't think that the problem can be solved by working diligently on individual cases or by making small corrections to the system. It's easy to acknowledge a problem in the system but then sit for a specific trial and know confidently that the defendant is almost certainly guilty and vote accordingly. The problem is that this keeps the system working just well enough to protect just barely enough people (Which people? Guess.) so that nothing changes.
For instance, I could send someone to jail when they should get rehabilitation. Or I could send someone to jail for a term far out of proportion to the nature of their crime due to harsh minimum sentencing laws. Or I could send someone with serious (serious) mental and emotional problems to jail when part of the of blame must lay on society for failing to provide a safety net. Or for failing to provide adequate opportunities in the first place. Or I could send a guilty person to jail knowing full well that a person in different circumstances (race, income, class, etc...) would have received a far lesser sentence. Or would likely have never been prosecuted at all. Or is less likely to even have been caught in the first place. Or I could send someone to jail because they aren't getting adequate representation...
I'm not even claiming that I doubt the integrity of the prosecutors. I'm sure they are mostly law abiding and ethical. I do wonder if there's a culture at work that pressures them to cut corners, and do it unknowingly at that.
All of the answers have been helpful. Even those that question my motives. Honestly, I question them myself. Thanks again. Anyway, I hope you understand that I'm not saying ,"The system is broken and I'm not interested in participating." My intention is more like ,"The system is fundamentally flawed and more of the same won't help. What else can I do (without ending up in jail)?"
I'm hoping that my experience will be similar to desuetude's (and one other commenter that I sort of remember and probably more now... lots of answers.. hard to keep up while writing my response). But I'm still interested in more confirmation of my choices, the potential consequences and the corresponding likelihoods.
posted by stuart_s at 8:46 AM on May 24, 2006
I still fail to see how your service on a jury will enforce "more of the same". If you are diligent about expressing your opinions to fellow jurors and you present careful, well-reasoned arguments about your thoughts, you may exhibit what is best about our criminal justice system - the involvement of a citizen.
For the record, in many situations, a jury won't be sentencing the individual, the judge will. The majority of what jurors do is decide legal guilt. So quit worrying about the drama of sentencing.
And I must reiterate what I and others have said - it is highly unlikely that you will even get empaneled. Just be honest, and you'll likely be sent home. And if you aren't, start changing the world.
posted by MeetMegan at 8:56 AM on May 24, 2006
For the record, in many situations, a jury won't be sentencing the individual, the judge will. The majority of what jurors do is decide legal guilt. So quit worrying about the drama of sentencing.
And I must reiterate what I and others have said - it is highly unlikely that you will even get empaneled. Just be honest, and you'll likely be sent home. And if you aren't, start changing the world.
posted by MeetMegan at 8:56 AM on May 24, 2006
Are you currently involved in any efforts to change the justice system or address these ills? If so, that will possibly come out during the juror selection process. If you are not, then one could argue that you are already tacitly approving of the justice system by not actively pursuing change. If you only think some sentences are wrong, then be a juror and try your best to not allow that sort of sentence. I think you'll find that most cases are not indicative of the stereotype that the mentally ill are unjustly jailed, that the rich go free, and that there isn't adequate representation. It's much more likely you'll be on a case with a more even balance.
posted by mikeh at 9:10 AM on May 24, 2006
posted by mikeh at 9:10 AM on May 24, 2006
One thing you should be warned of is that the rules around Jury duty can vary a great deal from place to place. Where I live it is damn near impossible to get off jury duty and almost everyone who is called ends up serving on a jury: they will simply recycle you through the process over and over again in different jury pools regardless of what ethical objections you are putting forth - so if you obstinately hold to a viewpoint that gets you taken off juries, you will end up getting called in every day for the full minimum term of duty (2 weeks) and having to stay the full day, getting sent through one voir dire after another. This is not typical - my county has a reputation, I've read, being a tough place to avoid jury duty in. The opinion that you might be quickly eliminated from the process may be untrue.
As long as you show up, are honest, but follow the instructions of the judge, you are unlikely to get into any real trouble. If you refuse to participate by not showing up/going through the process, or by refusing to comply with the instructions of the judge, you may get into trouble. If you elect to make the jury selection process a platform for your opinion of the legal system, be prepared first to be treated as if you are merely trying to get out of jury duty and second for the possibility of a hostile reaction from your fellow jurors (you will be slowing things down and complicating them and some will probably also think you are just trying to get out of it).
posted by nanojath at 9:25 AM on May 24, 2006
As long as you show up, are honest, but follow the instructions of the judge, you are unlikely to get into any real trouble. If you refuse to participate by not showing up/going through the process, or by refusing to comply with the instructions of the judge, you may get into trouble. If you elect to make the jury selection process a platform for your opinion of the legal system, be prepared first to be treated as if you are merely trying to get out of jury duty and second for the possibility of a hostile reaction from your fellow jurors (you will be slowing things down and complicating them and some will probably also think you are just trying to get out of it).
posted by nanojath at 9:25 AM on May 24, 2006
In my experience, any potential juror that expresses a strong opinion---one way or another---gets eliminated. The quiet and indecisive potential jurors get picked. If you don't get an opportunity to explain your stance during voir dire, you can approach the judge before actual selection takes place.
posted by lunalaguna at 9:26 AM on May 24, 2006
posted by lunalaguna at 9:26 AM on May 24, 2006
Response by poster: mikeh:I would go much further than saying that I may tacitly be supporting what I otherwise claim is an unacceptable system. I would say it's pretty certain. I think, and I admit that I may be wrong, that actively supporting it is something different. Also, you note that unfair prosecutions of the mentally challenged are rare. I agree but would counter that this is small in comparison to the number of people who were never offered anything more than a barbaric, shameful excuse for education and healthcare. And you note that it is rare that a rich person on trial buys his way out of trouble. Again, I would agree but would counter that this number is small in comparison to the number of, for instance, rich and middle class drug users who will never get caught committing their crimes out in the suburbs in the first place.
MeetMegan: I don't mean that merely sitting on a jury will necessarily enforce more of the same. If I sat and followed the law and the judge's instructions, however, I'm afraid I almost certainly would be. Presenting careful, well-reasoned arguments about my thoughts would involve campaigning for other jurors to acquit possibly even if they believed the defendent was guilty and even when the defense itself doesn't offer mitigating circumstances - essentially, subverting the process as the judge and prosecutor intend for it to work.
Thanks everyone not only for helpful specific advice but also for giving me an opportunity to flesh out some of my objections before I'm forced to explain myself in court.
posted by stuart_s at 9:29 AM on May 24, 2006
MeetMegan: I don't mean that merely sitting on a jury will necessarily enforce more of the same. If I sat and followed the law and the judge's instructions, however, I'm afraid I almost certainly would be. Presenting careful, well-reasoned arguments about my thoughts would involve campaigning for other jurors to acquit possibly even if they believed the defendent was guilty and even when the defense itself doesn't offer mitigating circumstances - essentially, subverting the process as the judge and prosecutor intend for it to work.
Thanks everyone not only for helpful specific advice but also for giving me an opportunity to flesh out some of my objections before I'm forced to explain myself in court.
posted by stuart_s at 9:29 AM on May 24, 2006
I was going to ask what you were doing to address our concerns in lieu of jury duty. But that doesn't really matter.
You seem to think that by avoiding jury duty you will be engaging in some kind of non-violent protest of an unjust system. But, in fact, you are doing no such thing. Avoidance is not protestation. Now, if you go down to the court house, declare to the judge and lawyers that you believe the system to be unjust and that you refuse to serve on the jury, that is making a protest. You may also go to jail, but such is the lot of civil disobediants.
Again, you have many options: you can quietly participate in the process, you can vociferously decry the process, you can attempt to reform it by example, or attempt to reform it by activism. Doing nothing except ignoring your responsibility, your duty, is not a responsible way to act on your grievance. To remind you of a famous phrase, all it takes for injustice to flourish is for just men to do nothing.
posted by oddman at 9:29 AM on May 24, 2006
You seem to think that by avoiding jury duty you will be engaging in some kind of non-violent protest of an unjust system. But, in fact, you are doing no such thing. Avoidance is not protestation. Now, if you go down to the court house, declare to the judge and lawyers that you believe the system to be unjust and that you refuse to serve on the jury, that is making a protest. You may also go to jail, but such is the lot of civil disobediants.
Again, you have many options: you can quietly participate in the process, you can vociferously decry the process, you can attempt to reform it by example, or attempt to reform it by activism. Doing nothing except ignoring your responsibility, your duty, is not a responsible way to act on your grievance. To remind you of a famous phrase, all it takes for injustice to flourish is for just men to do nothing.
posted by oddman at 9:29 AM on May 24, 2006
stuart_s: I would be wary of mragreeable's link to the FIJA. It really seems to be espousing jury nullification, a hazy an mostly unapplied concept.
posted by Captaintripps at 9:30 AM on May 24, 2006
posted by Captaintripps at 9:30 AM on May 24, 2006
Read lots of local crime news. You can't be on a jury if you've read about the case for which the jury is being selected.
posted by brownpau at 9:35 AM on May 24, 2006
posted by brownpau at 9:35 AM on May 24, 2006
Following up on your most recent response to MeetMegan: You seem to be more concerned with the ethical ramifications of actions over the legal ones, so why are you worried about undermining an unethical legal process? I would think that if you feel the system is so bad that it tends to regularly produce unethical results, you should be willing to subvert the system in order to promote ethical results. If the judge and prosecutor intend to enforce a bad law and/or generate an unethical outcome why do you think it's wrong to stop them?
If I'm ever called to serve on a jury I will certainly argue for acquittal if the punishment does not fit the crime. I believe that in doing so I will be making our society better as a whole.
posted by oddman at 9:38 AM on May 24, 2006
If I'm ever called to serve on a jury I will certainly argue for acquittal if the punishment does not fit the crime. I believe that in doing so I will be making our society better as a whole.
posted by oddman at 9:38 AM on May 24, 2006
I get the bias problem. I have similar issues with our justice system. (And even more so in my actual local area, what with a very dealth-penalty-happy DA.)
But arguably, showing up for jury duty (i.e. fulfilling your duty) but explaining why you cannot participate in good conscience may be one of the best ways to register your protest, as you are stating your problem to the relevant individuals, from within the framework of the system, without ignoring your civil duty to show up for jury duty.
To give another heartwarming example: My best friend served as foreman on a criminal trial. After much deliberation, the jury ultimately decided that the investigation of the crime and prosecution's case were so insufficient and weak that the jury had to acquit. In this case, class and racial bias and circumstantial evidence did not get the prosecution their conviction. The jury acted as a check against injustice.
posted by desuetude at 9:55 AM on May 24, 2006
But arguably, showing up for jury duty (i.e. fulfilling your duty) but explaining why you cannot participate in good conscience may be one of the best ways to register your protest, as you are stating your problem to the relevant individuals, from within the framework of the system, without ignoring your civil duty to show up for jury duty.
To give another heartwarming example: My best friend served as foreman on a criminal trial. After much deliberation, the jury ultimately decided that the investigation of the crime and prosecution's case were so insufficient and weak that the jury had to acquit. In this case, class and racial bias and circumstantial evidence did not get the prosecution their conviction. The jury acted as a check against injustice.
posted by desuetude at 9:55 AM on May 24, 2006
Seconding jury nullification. Never before have you had as much power to influence the system as you do now.
As for what will happen if you ignore it, if you have the same experience that I do, you will receive a series of increasingly threatening letters until you cave and reschedule. None of the letters were registered/certified/traceable, but I bet that wouldn't stop them from putting out a warrant anyway, and really, that's more trouble than I need.
Now, doubts regarding the integrity of the American voting system...
posted by trevyn at 10:19 AM on May 24, 2006
As for what will happen if you ignore it, if you have the same experience that I do, you will receive a series of increasingly threatening letters until you cave and reschedule. None of the letters were registered/certified/traceable, but I bet that wouldn't stop them from putting out a warrant anyway, and really, that's more trouble than I need.
Now, doubts regarding the integrity of the American voting system...
posted by trevyn at 10:19 AM on May 24, 2006
How do you know you won't be on a civil trial? Maybe you'll get to put millions in the hands of a poor victim of some evil corporation! Or maybe it will be a criminal trial, and you'll be the catalyst that frees the unjustly accused!
I think you're taking some isolated problems and overlaying them on the entire system. In other words, even though there are some bad egg prosecutors and police, and even though there have been some draconian sentencing guidelines, I personally don't think those concerns give you license to condemn the whole system out-of-hand. There are plenty of corrupt union officials -- should unions be abolished? There are corrupt politicians -- is the legislature broken? There are corrupt cops -- should we do away with police? Don't make the mistake of cherry picking faults to conclude the system as a whole is indefensible.
posted by pardonyou? at 10:20 AM on May 24, 2006
I think you're taking some isolated problems and overlaying them on the entire system. In other words, even though there are some bad egg prosecutors and police, and even though there have been some draconian sentencing guidelines, I personally don't think those concerns give you license to condemn the whole system out-of-hand. There are plenty of corrupt union officials -- should unions be abolished? There are corrupt politicians -- is the legislature broken? There are corrupt cops -- should we do away with police? Don't make the mistake of cherry picking faults to conclude the system as a whole is indefensible.
posted by pardonyou? at 10:20 AM on May 24, 2006
It sounds like a lot of your objections are in regards to sentencing and as MeetMegan points out, that decision is usually made by the judge and not the jury. You should express your opinions about mandatory minimum sentencing in a letter to the United States Sentencing Commission.
FWIW I served on a murder trial in Brooklyn and if nothing else it gave me the opportunity to meet and interact with a lot of interesting people in the community that I otherwise would've never met. You are bothered by some of the injustices that do occur in our legal system, and that's good, but I honestly feel like groups such as the innocence project, the EFF, and the ACLU are facilitating the best opportunity for justice in the history of the country. There will always be something wrong with our legal system, but there will always be people fighting to discover and correct those wrongs.
posted by mattbucher at 10:20 AM on May 24, 2006
FWIW I served on a murder trial in Brooklyn and if nothing else it gave me the opportunity to meet and interact with a lot of interesting people in the community that I otherwise would've never met. You are bothered by some of the injustices that do occur in our legal system, and that's good, but I honestly feel like groups such as the innocence project, the EFF, and the ACLU are facilitating the best opportunity for justice in the history of the country. There will always be something wrong with our legal system, but there will always be people fighting to discover and correct those wrongs.
posted by mattbucher at 10:20 AM on May 24, 2006
You seem to be making your decision and making your stand based on the idea that you will be imposing sentence on the defendant if you find him guilty. As I noted above, the JUDGE is the most likely sentencer, not the jury. You will likely never have to even worry about it!
You state:
Presenting careful, well-reasoned arguments about my thoughts would involve campaigning for other jurors to acquit possibly even if they believed the defendant was guilty and even when the defense itself doesn't offer mitigating circumstances - essentially, subverting the process as the judge and prosecutor intend for it to work.
The whole point of having a jury of more than one person is so that the jury can argue out the case amongst themselves. If you are arguing, you are trying to persuade. If you persuade your fellow jurors that the defendant is innocent, then the system has worked. Each juror makes their own decision - if a juror thinks the defendant is guilty, then that juror will vote guilty. If you can logically persuade that juror that the defendant is innocent, then you've changed their vote. That's pretty much "reasonable doubt" in a nutshell. It's all about persuasion. What's wrong with that?
posted by MeetMegan at 10:23 AM on May 24, 2006
You state:
Presenting careful, well-reasoned arguments about my thoughts would involve campaigning for other jurors to acquit possibly even if they believed the defendant was guilty and even when the defense itself doesn't offer mitigating circumstances - essentially, subverting the process as the judge and prosecutor intend for it to work.
The whole point of having a jury of more than one person is so that the jury can argue out the case amongst themselves. If you are arguing, you are trying to persuade. If you persuade your fellow jurors that the defendant is innocent, then the system has worked. Each juror makes their own decision - if a juror thinks the defendant is guilty, then that juror will vote guilty. If you can logically persuade that juror that the defendant is innocent, then you've changed their vote. That's pretty much "reasonable doubt" in a nutshell. It's all about persuasion. What's wrong with that?
posted by MeetMegan at 10:23 AM on May 24, 2006
pardonyou? and others before have also raised a good point - are you positive this is a criminal court you are called to?
posted by MeetMegan at 10:26 AM on May 24, 2006
posted by MeetMegan at 10:26 AM on May 24, 2006
stuart_s - You need to sit on a jury if you haven't done so yet. Not because it's your duty, but because it's the only way you'll see how wildly broken our justice system is. Right now you *think* it's a mess. Sitting on a jury will show you the how and why.
The system will change faster if folks like you have concrete experience that will focus outrage and motivate action.
When people say they want to get out of jury duty I always try to talk them out of it. People need to see how broken things are. I think a huge part of the problem is that almost everyone tries to get out of it. Which has caused it to be an ugly mess we're conditioned to ignore.
I am asking you to please not avoid jury duty.
posted by y6y6y6 at 10:47 AM on May 24, 2006
The system will change faster if folks like you have concrete experience that will focus outrage and motivate action.
When people say they want to get out of jury duty I always try to talk them out of it. People need to see how broken things are. I think a huge part of the problem is that almost everyone tries to get out of it. Which has caused it to be an ugly mess we're conditioned to ignore.
I am asking you to please not avoid jury duty.
posted by y6y6y6 at 10:47 AM on May 24, 2006
Be careful. If you speak your mind, the judge may suspect you of using your stance as a pretense to get out of jury duty.
There's a judge around Atlanta who may, if she suspects you of trying to avoid jury duty, compel you to sit through the trial. If you object and bring in an attorney to plead your case, the judge may tell your attorney that you have a choice: you can sit through the trial or you can sit in jail while your attorney appeals the ruling.
There is no safe way to do what you want to do. Your best bet is to serve conscientiously.
posted by donpardo at 11:09 AM on May 24, 2006
There's a judge around Atlanta who may, if she suspects you of trying to avoid jury duty, compel you to sit through the trial. If you object and bring in an attorney to plead your case, the judge may tell your attorney that you have a choice: you can sit through the trial or you can sit in jail while your attorney appeals the ruling.
There is no safe way to do what you want to do. Your best bet is to serve conscientiously.
posted by donpardo at 11:09 AM on May 24, 2006
I was on a jury the year before last and if I had no faith in the system before I REALLY have no faith in it now.
The oath was read by someone with minimal English skills. I later asked to have it re-read because I hadn't understood it completely. It turns out I was swearing to obey the judge. How fucked up is that? I was such a weenie for not demanding it in intelligible English at the start.
No one was allowed to tell us what the supposed crime was- we knew it was something to do with drunk driving, that's it. No one was allowed to know what the sentencing was, for fear it would influence our decision. And you know what? it SHOULD influence our decision! Are we putting someone away for life for pissing off some rookie cop, because it's his 3rd offense? How is it justice if we do? meetmegan's point:
For the record, in many situations, a jury won't be sentencing the individual, the judge will. The majority of what jurors do is decide legal guilt. So quit worrying about the drama of sentencing.
is one of the things I am very much against. It is not justice if you don't know what the sentencing will be.
In fact, the number of things the jury was NOT allowed to know nearly guaranteed a win for the DA. That the defense attorney was incompetant and hugely irritating didn't help.
captaintripps, that jury nullification is hazy and mosty unapplied is all the more reason to get it out in the open again. Jury nullification is fundamental to the American justice system. And, much like business charters, it is another of founding fathers' deliberate checks on authority that is being undermined because it is inconvenient to authority.
I understand that juries are loose cannons, and why judges and attorneys would want to limit juries' authority, but making life easy for the servants of the justice system should not the point of the American justice system.
In the end, the jury is supposed to BE the justice system.
I DID leave jury nullification printouts hidden in the jury room magazines, so it wasn't a complete loss.
posted by small_ruminant at 11:19 AM on May 24, 2006
The oath was read by someone with minimal English skills. I later asked to have it re-read because I hadn't understood it completely. It turns out I was swearing to obey the judge. How fucked up is that? I was such a weenie for not demanding it in intelligible English at the start.
No one was allowed to tell us what the supposed crime was- we knew it was something to do with drunk driving, that's it. No one was allowed to know what the sentencing was, for fear it would influence our decision. And you know what? it SHOULD influence our decision! Are we putting someone away for life for pissing off some rookie cop, because it's his 3rd offense? How is it justice if we do? meetmegan's point:
For the record, in many situations, a jury won't be sentencing the individual, the judge will. The majority of what jurors do is decide legal guilt. So quit worrying about the drama of sentencing.
is one of the things I am very much against. It is not justice if you don't know what the sentencing will be.
In fact, the number of things the jury was NOT allowed to know nearly guaranteed a win for the DA. That the defense attorney was incompetant and hugely irritating didn't help.
captaintripps, that jury nullification is hazy and mosty unapplied is all the more reason to get it out in the open again. Jury nullification is fundamental to the American justice system. And, much like business charters, it is another of founding fathers' deliberate checks on authority that is being undermined because it is inconvenient to authority.
I understand that juries are loose cannons, and why judges and attorneys would want to limit juries' authority, but making life easy for the servants of the justice system should not the point of the American justice system.
In the end, the jury is supposed to BE the justice system.
I DID leave jury nullification printouts hidden in the jury room magazines, so it wasn't a complete loss.
posted by small_ruminant at 11:19 AM on May 24, 2006
One of the things which didn't involve starting fires that stands out in my memory of being in the Boy Scouts was a section in the manual about civics. It was written in a manner meant to appeal to the naive or idealistic, but it's underlying meaning was good: the best way to seek change is not to break a law, but to work to change it. This applies to your circumstances because this is an ideal opportunity to experience the justice system first hand and to collect some data about how it works or fails to work.
Thus informed, you can seek to change that which you believe does not work. Of course, this is significantly harder than avoiding the problem, but maybe you have a calling waiting for you to pick up the phone.
posted by plinth at 11:26 AM on May 24, 2006
Thus informed, you can seek to change that which you believe does not work. Of course, this is significantly harder than avoiding the problem, but maybe you have a calling waiting for you to pick up the phone.
posted by plinth at 11:26 AM on May 24, 2006
plinth, my dad's version of that was:
Do you want to be the outlaws who throw themselves at the bandsaw in protest? Or do you want to get into the system enough to get behind the bandsaw and work to turn it off?
the trick is- how do you infiltrate the old guard without becoming the old guard?
posted by small_ruminant at 11:33 AM on May 24, 2006
Do you want to be the outlaws who throw themselves at the bandsaw in protest? Or do you want to get into the system enough to get behind the bandsaw and work to turn it off?
the trick is- how do you infiltrate the old guard without becoming the old guard?
posted by small_ruminant at 11:33 AM on May 24, 2006
I second what almost everyone else has said: you won't even begin to understand the criminal justice system until you serve on a jury. I've done it a couple of times and not only found it interesting but had it renew my hard-pressed faith in my fellow citizens, all of whom worked hard and conscientiously to understand their duty and fulfill it. And I helped get a couple of guys acquitted whom I'm pretty sure the cops were trying to railroad; it's a good feeling to be able to think someone could have gone to prison if you hadn't been there. Wouldn't you like to have that opportunity?
posted by languagehat at 11:41 AM on May 24, 2006
posted by languagehat at 11:41 AM on May 24, 2006
small_ruminant writes "In the end, the jury is supposed to BE the justice system. "
No it isn't. Your complaints betray a deep misunderstanding of the role juries play in the American justice system. They aren't inquisitorial panels with powers of investigation; they serve the court by deciding contested matters of fact as instructed by the judge.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:30 PM on May 24, 2006
No it isn't. Your complaints betray a deep misunderstanding of the role juries play in the American justice system. They aren't inquisitorial panels with powers of investigation; they serve the court by deciding contested matters of fact as instructed by the judge.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:30 PM on May 24, 2006
I think I get what you're talking about. Sometimes, for example, the law requires a certain sentence upon conviction, even if that sentence isn't the most appropriate solution. There are so many other instances.
I've served on two juries and I've been rejected three other times. I've seen many people excused because they said they had doubts about various aspects of the legal system: innocent until proven guilty, distrust of cops, refusing to consider death penalty, and so on.
My point is that once you voice your opinions -- and you will be asked to do so -- one of the attorneys will excuse you. And if you're worried about it, speak up when they ask whether anyone in the jury pool doubts their own ability to be impartial.
posted by wryly at 1:00 PM on May 24, 2006
I've served on two juries and I've been rejected three other times. I've seen many people excused because they said they had doubts about various aspects of the legal system: innocent until proven guilty, distrust of cops, refusing to consider death penalty, and so on.
My point is that once you voice your opinions -- and you will be asked to do so -- one of the attorneys will excuse you. And if you're worried about it, speak up when they ask whether anyone in the jury pool doubts their own ability to be impartial.
posted by wryly at 1:00 PM on May 24, 2006
Serving on a jury is very instructive about the law enforcement system and about your fellow citizens, and in that sense is a great way to spend a few days if you have an opportunity.
And, moreover, educated and intelligent people often find that they end up playing a leading role in deliberations: there's a great chance that you, yourself, can keep a bad guy from getting back on the streets, or ensure that someone with reasonable doubt on his side is spared prison. That's a kind of power, and responsibility, that few of us ever get to see.
Your duty in the voir dire is to answer the questions honestly. Your duty if enpaneled is to follow the judge's instructions conscientiously and deliberate open-mindedly with your fellow jurors, and, within those bounds, vote as you see the evidence.
Notice what's not there. It is perfectly appropriate to bring to the jury room any particular prediliction you might have, including predilictions quite unfavorable to the prosecution (like, for example, a distrust for cops). Most of the predilictions are sussed out in voir dire and used to strike prospective jurors -- but if counsel fails to get them out of you in voir dire, that's their fault, not yours.
posted by MattD at 1:04 PM on May 24, 2006
And, moreover, educated and intelligent people often find that they end up playing a leading role in deliberations: there's a great chance that you, yourself, can keep a bad guy from getting back on the streets, or ensure that someone with reasonable doubt on his side is spared prison. That's a kind of power, and responsibility, that few of us ever get to see.
Your duty in the voir dire is to answer the questions honestly. Your duty if enpaneled is to follow the judge's instructions conscientiously and deliberate open-mindedly with your fellow jurors, and, within those bounds, vote as you see the evidence.
Notice what's not there. It is perfectly appropriate to bring to the jury room any particular prediliction you might have, including predilictions quite unfavorable to the prosecution (like, for example, a distrust for cops). Most of the predilictions are sussed out in voir dire and used to strike prospective jurors -- but if counsel fails to get them out of you in voir dire, that's their fault, not yours.
posted by MattD at 1:04 PM on May 24, 2006
they serve the court by deciding contested matters of fact as instructed by the judge.
What does "as instructed by the judge" mean?
The jury should have the right to decide on the facts AND on whether or not a law is fair. At the start of the US this idea was upheld more than once. These days it's less popular.
posted by small_ruminant at 1:07 PM on May 24, 2006
What does "as instructed by the judge" mean?
The jury should have the right to decide on the facts AND on whether or not a law is fair. At the start of the US this idea was upheld more than once. These days it's less popular.
posted by small_ruminant at 1:07 PM on May 24, 2006
I really, really sympathize with stuart_s's concerns, but I can't see a single objection he's bringing up as being relevant to the question of serving or not serving on a jury. Things like draconian sentencing laws and unfair prosecutions aren't really the fault of the criminal justice system...they're the fault of the legislative system, and not serving won't change that. An inordinate amount of the crime in this country is caused by the war on drugs, which is as unwinnable as the war on liquor was in the early part of the last century. This can't be changed by your serving or not serving on a jury.
I guess my point is that the people who are found guilty are, with some exceptions, indeed guilty, under the current laws. You have to work outside of the criminal justice system to get the laws changed. The vast majority of those who work in the criminal justice system are merely enforcing the laws that our legislative and executive representatives have put in place. That's where the change needs to happen.
posted by lhauser at 1:22 PM on May 24, 2006
I guess my point is that the people who are found guilty are, with some exceptions, indeed guilty, under the current laws. You have to work outside of the criminal justice system to get the laws changed. The vast majority of those who work in the criminal justice system are merely enforcing the laws that our legislative and executive representatives have put in place. That's where the change needs to happen.
posted by lhauser at 1:22 PM on May 24, 2006
Do you pay taxes? Odds are that by doing so you do more to support the system you have a problem with than you will by showing up for jury duty.
I mention this more in an effort to get you to consider ways to reconcile your views with this responsibility, and to consider other more effective ways you can deal with this concern.
For example: I have an issue with the U.S. drug laws. Would going outside to smoke a joint represent a worthwhile way of impacting them? Would deliberately getting myself arrested for doing so be worthwhile? My personal theory is that, barring getting a few hundred other people together to do it with me, I'd accomplish more by staying out of jail and volunteering for NORML, or sending them money, or writing my congresscritter. Etc.
Being called to jury duty may be the situation where your personal opinions most directly rub up against something that bugs you, but that doesn't mean it's the most effective avenue for you to do something about it. Do the labor you're called upon to do so you can continue to be free to accomplish things in a more effective manner.
posted by phearlez at 2:06 PM on May 24, 2006
I mention this more in an effort to get you to consider ways to reconcile your views with this responsibility, and to consider other more effective ways you can deal with this concern.
For example: I have an issue with the U.S. drug laws. Would going outside to smoke a joint represent a worthwhile way of impacting them? Would deliberately getting myself arrested for doing so be worthwhile? My personal theory is that, barring getting a few hundred other people together to do it with me, I'd accomplish more by staying out of jail and volunteering for NORML, or sending them money, or writing my congresscritter. Etc.
Being called to jury duty may be the situation where your personal opinions most directly rub up against something that bugs you, but that doesn't mean it's the most effective avenue for you to do something about it. Do the labor you're called upon to do so you can continue to be free to accomplish things in a more effective manner.
posted by phearlez at 2:06 PM on May 24, 2006
I think you should serve and then make your decisions about the justice system, simple as that.
You're judging something of which you have no direct knowledge. Sure, the system fails, or produces bad results from time to time, but you weren't there and you're only guessing as to the reasons. Now you get a chance to be there.
Go, serve, have an open but critical mind, keep a detailed diary, ask questions, check out the laws and social circumstances and economic imperatives behind the case you're on, then write it all up and put it online and tell us about it. Then we'll know more about it too and will be able to make our own decisions based on your experience.
If you find out you were right, the system is critically flawed, then next time, you refuse to serve on that basis. Hell, stand outside the courthouse with a placard. But when someone says "what's your problem, have you ever been part of the justice system?" you'll be able to say "yes", not "no, but I hear it's ... really bad".
posted by AmbroseChapel at 2:23 PM on May 24, 2006
You're judging something of which you have no direct knowledge. Sure, the system fails, or produces bad results from time to time, but you weren't there and you're only guessing as to the reasons. Now you get a chance to be there.
Go, serve, have an open but critical mind, keep a detailed diary, ask questions, check out the laws and social circumstances and economic imperatives behind the case you're on, then write it all up and put it online and tell us about it. Then we'll know more about it too and will be able to make our own decisions based on your experience.
If you find out you were right, the system is critically flawed, then next time, you refuse to serve on that basis. Hell, stand outside the courthouse with a placard. But when someone says "what's your problem, have you ever been part of the justice system?" you'll be able to say "yes", not "no, but I hear it's ... really bad".
posted by AmbroseChapel at 2:23 PM on May 24, 2006
You should definitely show up. You probably won't get past voir dire if you get pulled for an actual trial, as long as you're answering honestly. It sounds like you have concerns about the limits and nature of culpability, not just sentencing, so those concerns will be relevant for jury selection in a criminal trial. In the town where I grew up, though, the fact that you're called doesn't even mean you'll be asked to show up at voir dire. That will vary according to jusidiction.
When I had jury duty, I ended up on a mental competency hearing, and was pleasantly surprised to discover that everyone took the hearing and deliberations very seriously. Some of the members agreed that the patient didn't meet the legal standards for involuntary commitment, but agitated very strongly to do it anyway, so that he would get treatment. Some said we had to stick to the law, and couldn't just do what we thought would be best. All the discussions were very well thought out, and very careful. The jury was extremely conscientious of questions of justice, and right and wrong, throughout - and this was for commitment, not a criminal trial.
As to jury nullification, it's one of those things that seems like a good idea for positions you like, but absolutely evil when applied to positions you don't - like the Emmett Till murder. Just a thought.
posted by dilettante at 2:31 PM on May 24, 2006
When I had jury duty, I ended up on a mental competency hearing, and was pleasantly surprised to discover that everyone took the hearing and deliberations very seriously. Some of the members agreed that the patient didn't meet the legal standards for involuntary commitment, but agitated very strongly to do it anyway, so that he would get treatment. Some said we had to stick to the law, and couldn't just do what we thought would be best. All the discussions were very well thought out, and very careful. The jury was extremely conscientious of questions of justice, and right and wrong, throughout - and this was for commitment, not a criminal trial.
As to jury nullification, it's one of those things that seems like a good idea for positions you like, but absolutely evil when applied to positions you don't - like the Emmett Till murder. Just a thought.
posted by dilettante at 2:31 PM on May 24, 2006
You have to go. As a citizen, you owe us that. There will be legal and moral repercussions for you if you don't (unless, of course, you're the President.) It really is your duty, and it's important. I understand you're concerned about your ability to perform as an unbiased juror, but that isn't for you to decide. They will assess that at the voir dire, and, if you tell the truth, probably send you home.
posted by Count Ziggurat at 2:32 PM on May 24, 2006
posted by Count Ziggurat at 2:32 PM on May 24, 2006
Two years ago, I had to do jury duty in a federal court in Fort Lauderdale. It was an atypical experience... I was empaneled and the trial lasted for two weeks (right at the end of the school year, when I was stressing about getting grades turned in for several hundred music students). Pretty much everyone's nightmare scenario when they get called to serve, right?
The trial was criminal, and involved two men indicted for smuggling an ungodly amount of cocaine into the US. Two men were being tried. As the trial went on, it became obvious that one of the men was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, and was totally being railroaded by the DEA and the DA (they had no evidence to tie him to the crime save the fact that he gave his friend a ride to the warehouse where the drugs were to be picked up, and the defense had a shitload of evidence pointing at his innocence). It felt really, really good to be able to send the second man home to his family.
Go. And although I understand where you're coming from philosophically and would encourage you to bring up your concerns during voir dire if you feel called to do so, don't be too bummed if you wind up on a jury... you never know what kind of impact you can have, or the amount of good you can do.
posted by the_bone at 6:08 PM on May 24, 2006
The trial was criminal, and involved two men indicted for smuggling an ungodly amount of cocaine into the US. Two men were being tried. As the trial went on, it became obvious that one of the men was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, and was totally being railroaded by the DEA and the DA (they had no evidence to tie him to the crime save the fact that he gave his friend a ride to the warehouse where the drugs were to be picked up, and the defense had a shitload of evidence pointing at his innocence). It felt really, really good to be able to send the second man home to his family.
Go. And although I understand where you're coming from philosophically and would encourage you to bring up your concerns during voir dire if you feel called to do so, don't be too bummed if you wind up on a jury... you never know what kind of impact you can have, or the amount of good you can do.
posted by the_bone at 6:08 PM on May 24, 2006
Response by poster: I went. I expressed my doubts but I was a little wishy-washy. I guess that's a character flaw. You'd think that at least the prosecution would have been adamantly opposed to my presence but no one objected and I ended up on a jury. It was a serious crime and the trial extended my service by two days. I was an alternate juror so I didn't really have any further chance to argue my bleeding heart principles. Ultimately, I don't think anyone even noticed.
One of the other jurors was cute. So, that was nice.
Note to self: unregister to vote!
posted by stuart_s at 9:02 AM on June 8, 2006
One of the other jurors was cute. So, that was nice.
Note to self: unregister to vote!
posted by stuart_s at 9:02 AM on June 8, 2006
« Older I Need Cylindrical Mooing Objects - and More! | Unsigned Patent Application Question Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by mattbucher at 7:29 AM on May 24, 2006