Jury Duty.
First response: ugh. Second response: I feel guilty for my first response.
It is my civic duty after all, and if I were to find myself facing a jury of my peers, then I'd want someone like me on the jury. I try to be fair, I try to be honest. I try to be unbiased. That's the best I can say. I am not a perfect person and I am guilty of human emotion.
I can't complain really. I've only been called upon once or twice before, and both times I appeared but was dismissed because the jury was picked before they got to me.
Both times I actually wanted to be picked. I wanted to serve on the jury for the experience of seeing how our justice system works. I wanted to ensure that a defendant had a fair trial because I would make sure it was fair. I was so ideal then.
Now I don't want to be picked. Now I don't even want to have to appear at all and I'm hoping that when I call the number the night before I will learn that I have already been dismissed.
And it bothers me that I have a bad attitude about it.
I did a google search where all I typed in was "jury duty" and the very first thing to pop up in the search was, "How to get out of Jury Duty" a wikihow article. So that suggests to me that getting out of jury duty is what most people want to know about it.
So here's a chilling thought: If everyone expects a fair trial, but no one wants to serve on a jury how does anyone get a fair trial?
What is the root of this problem? You can't fix a problem if you don't understand the problem. So where does the problem lie? Why is jury duty so undesirable?
In an effort to figure it out, I put the question out there to my facebook and twitter friends for two consecutive days:
"Why don't we want to do jury duty?"
Total apathy. I only got two responses on twitter. One friend said that she actually liked jury duty and looks forward to doing it. The other responder replied that the state of NJ only pays $5.00 for serving. That would barely cover the cost of coffee bought en route to the courthouse. Clearly, if you are self-employed it makes jury duty very undesirable indeed.
Based on the State's webpage regarding jury duty; while the employer is obligated to allow the juror to attend without consequence of being fired, it is not obligated to pay the employee. Double Wow. And those employers that do pay, may expect the employee to turn over the money earned for jury duty. All $5.00 of it.
OK, so mystery solved. It is abundantly clear why most of us try to wiggle out of jury duty.
Now here's a scratch your head question:
If the summons isn't delivered via certified mail, why don't jurors just shred it and put it in the trash? No one can prove it was properly delivered. In fact, even after I moved and voted from my new location, my summons was still mailed to my old residence in a different municipality. It is highly possible that I would not have received it. How can a bench warrant be issued for a person who may not have received a summons in the first place? That's presuming an innocent person who can never prove their innocence, is guilty. That's messed up even for New Jersey!
I found a youtube video put out by the State, describing the importance and honor of sitting on a NJ jury:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFBfYX3wcTI
It's well done by a judge and a high power attorney who undoubtedly make $6 figures a year and make it all sound so dignified.
It should be an honor but I think the fundamental problem is that jurors aren't treated with respect. And it isn't only about the $5.00 day salary or the pressure put on us by employers to get out of it or postpone the date. (I should mention it goes up to $35.00 day after serving four days.)
What the video doesn't mention is that sometimes the county courthouse is in the sleaziest section of the sleaziest towns, and that parking can be blocks away if provided at all. There should be a shuttle system in place to pick jurors up and take them home. (Except that we all know if the State provided such a service it would be so lame nobody would ever arrive to court in time.)
The video addresses the responsibility of being a juror and an impartial participant, but it doesn't mention jury nullification, which allows a jury to find the defendant guilty, but of an unjust law. It's one of the most powerful rights a jury has. Think Rosa Parks for example. We aren't told of this aspect of jury duty, because it poses such a headache for the system that if the judge or attorneys know you know about it prior to being chosen as a juror, you will most likely be excused. It's so hush hush they won't ask if you know about it. You have to ask them to explain it to you as a function of the jury and then it is almost guaranteed you will be let go without the explanation. A jury can only utilize nullification if one of the jurors knows about it and kept mum while being selected in order to preserve his/her right to use it if it is felt necessary. In the words of Voltaire, "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."
A fair and impartial juror can be dismissed for prejudices of the court. Is the defendant grossly overweight and a juror a health nut? Without explanation a skinny juror can be dismissed because the attorneys might assume he or she'd be prejudiced against a fat person. Many assumptions and stereotypes are made based upon a juror's profile. Ironic, huh?
I think it all comes down to this: we owe each other this courtesy, despite the hardship, unpleasantness and indignity, because it's the right thing to do.
I'm not saying this out of an idealized liberalness. I'm as bitter as the next guy. I've worked alongside corrupt individuals. I've done my job by the book while others didn't because I believed that hard work and loyalty is recognized and appreciated. But it isn't. I was the employee who was laid off due to political reasons and administrators who were gutless and corrupt enough to do the easiest thing instead of the right thing and don't even get me started on the union who forces you to pay whether you belong or not but won't lift a finger to help if you aren't tenured. But that's a different article. Trust me, I'm as disgusted and bitter as the next guy and just as suspicious of the corruptibility and fallibility of even the judge that sits before the jury.
And I guess now my logic has come full circle but from a different place. Selfishness.
It's the right thing to do not because of some idealized notion, but because of the realization of how corrupt the world really is and what a difference a sincere juror could make. It's not just for the sake of the innocent men and women who sit in jails or are executed because they had jurors whose motivation was to get out of there asap. (Think Twelve Angry Men without Henry Fonda's character.)
It's just as much for my sake as for the protection of a possibly innocent defendant: to make reasonably sure that the real perps stay off the streets.
No comments:
Post a Comment