The following article in The New York Times about how mistrials are on the rise due to jury misconduct disturbs me.
Now add on top of it basic juror misconduct and trials have two strikes against them. Do jurors simply not fully understand/respect how researching the trial or sharing information can destroy the trial altogether or do they not care because it is a moment in the limelight?
How does this fit into this blog you may ask? Oh...I can find a way! In the past we discussed sexual assault evidence not being tested. Now here we have instances where perhaps a high profile sexual assault case actually makes it to the jury trial phase and it can all be for naught because jurors are not taking the civic duty instructions seriously. We can't win for losing.
It might be called a Google mistrial. The use of BlackBerrys and iPhones by jurors gathering and sending out information about cases is wreaking havoc on trials around the country, upending deliberations and infuriating judges.The justice system already finds itself up against the "CSI Effect". Jurors expect snazzy forensic evidence at all trials, which is an unrealistic expectation. There is not always going to be DNA evidence left at a scene or not all evidence submitted is probative and therefore will not be tested. Those are facts that jurors tend to discount and by doing so cases are not receiving the full attention they deserve.
Now add on top of it basic juror misconduct and trials have two strikes against them. Do jurors simply not fully understand/respect how researching the trial or sharing information can destroy the trial altogether or do they not care because it is a moment in the limelight?
How does this fit into this blog you may ask? Oh...I can find a way! In the past we discussed sexual assault evidence not being tested. Now here we have instances where perhaps a high profile sexual assault case actually makes it to the jury trial phase and it can all be for naught because jurors are not taking the civic duty instructions seriously. We can't win for losing.
Posts
9 comments:
Perhaps the government needs to keep a pool of their own jurors. Make jury "duty" a job that someone is hired and paid properly for.
If not, and if they still wish to conscript citizens into compulsory service, then at least actually pay them fairly for their time.
When I was forced into jury duty, I was given a whopping 5 dollars a day. So I lost my wages for a full 5 missed days of work, and five 8 hour days of my time became 25 dollars.
Naturally I wouldn't give half a damn about something like that, when it's wasting my time so badly.
Who would?
Much like any other private employer, the government should realize, if you want quality, you have to pay for quality. Undervaluing people and their time with the insulting "compensation" they give people isn't going to promote good jury service.
I, and many others, I'm sure, feel no special honor in being selected for jury duty. It's a hassle, it's inconvenient, it disrupts your life, and what do you get out of it? Nothing. If we frown on compulsory military service in this country, why do we allow compulsory civil service?
Anyway, bit of a rant. Sorry.
Long story short, pay more money, allow people to refuse to serve if they don't want to = better juries.
A government paid pool of jurors rather defeats the "jury of your peers" concept of the justice system.
I was wondering if the notion that jury duty is a waste of time would come up. More often than not I hear griping about jury duty. Personally, I don't get it. And this was before I became part of the justice system.
I'm surprised to hear of a loss of wages during jury duty and that seems to be more of a reflection on the job. Many jobs grant work pay so the jury duty pay becomes extra pocket money.
I have to say that I disagree with the idea that if you pay people then they will suddenly behave as model jurors. Apparently jurors seeking outside information view it as going above and beyond their civic duty because they were gathering additional research for their decision. My guess is they will do that whether they are getting paid or not, which brings us right back around to a mistrial.
How so? A pool of people hired on to be professional jurors would be the same people from said community as people conscripted and forced into it.
Being forced under threat of arrest doesn't make people happily compliant.
That's one of many reasons I think jury duty is a disgusting waste of my time.
When they were selecting, they told the pool that nobody gets out of it. If your religion doesn't allow you to sit in judgement, too bad, it's "not an exemptible excuse". Same for "Financial hardship", (in many states, employers are NOT required to pay for your jury duty time. Just to not punish you for not being at work.) and many other reasons.
One woman had just started college, and this was supposed to have been her very first day, and she was forced to miss it, and the entire first week.
If jury duty wasn't such an inconvenience, and it wasn't forced under threat of imprisonment, and if it were paid better, I do believe people wouldn't treat it as such a burden.
As it currently is, it's insulting and truly a waste of time. It should be completely voluntary, at the very least.
I don't see how you "don't get" people finding it a waste of time.
My time, and that of many others is valuable. We have lives, and things we would rather be doing/need to be doing. To steal that time from us, under threat of arrest? You not having a problem with THAT, is what I don't get.
We are clearly going to have to agree to disagree on this one. In my entire time as an eligible juror I have been called once. It was not a waste of my time. I can assure you the victim would not think it was a waste of hers.
And there has been no response to the point that these jurors are seeking outside information to "help" them with the decision of guilt or innocence.
If you can convince me that if they were being paid big bucks to sit on the jury then and only then would they follow the rules set out before them...well that might be a different story. As it is, not liking the jury system as it stands does not seem to be a sufficient reason to force a mistrial.
People well compensated are more likely to follow the rules, as it were.
Employees in some fields feel justified in stealing from work when they're underpaid, when they might otherwise behave as they are supposed to.
Why I consider it a waste of time is because as it pertains to my life, my time could be better spent within my own life, instead of it being forced into something else.
You stop being a person, and start being something reached for out of the toolbox.
You become a resource to be shifted around.
I'm not even saying be paid "big bucks". Just fairly compensated for their time.
Should we raise taxes to fairly compensate jurors for their time? Who decides what 'fair compensation' is? Do you link juror pay to the pay a juror losses by not being at work, meaning an hourly worker would earn less for their time than, say, an AIG executive?
What type of trials are a 'waste of the jury's time' vs. the very valuable act of citizens coming together to protect the rights of fellow citizens? Certainly I wouldn't want to lose my right to a fair trial, and I'm not sure I understand how a system of professional jurors would work. Would people go to juror school? Would it be a governmental or elected post? If so, the line between juror and judge starts to blur. Particularly with the recent Supreme Court Case looking at the legality of judges sitting on cases of plaintiffs or defendants who have been major campaign contributers (Caperton vs. Massey Coal), I'm uneasy about the idea of electing jurors and then expecting the same type of impartiality one might get from completely disinterested strangers who don't look upon keeping their jury position as critical for their career. If not an elected post, a professional juror would have to either be appointed or hired - now we risk the appointing/hiring body selecting only jurors of a particular political bent or from a particular race or social class. In the wake of the Monica Goodling debacle (here), we know it can happen.
Maybe I'm being idealistic, but I believe that people are often motived to do things that aren't, strictly speaking, in their best interest. I do believe that we can do things and do them well for reasons other than personal gain. In fact, from what I've seen of the business world at least, a high wage isn't necessarily a guarantee of a job well done.
hould we raise taxes to fairly compensate jurors for their time?
If necessary.
Who decides what 'fair compensation' is?
Minimum wage standard would be enough, in all honesty. Going from 5 dollars per DAY to 7-9 dollars per HOUR would be a vast, incredible improvement.
Do you link juror pay to the pay a juror losses by not being at work, meaning an hourly worker would earn less for their time than, say, an AIG executive?
Technically, a salaried employee would be earning money regardless of their physical presence at their place of employment.
What type of trials are a 'waste of the jury's time' vs. the very valuable act of citizens coming together to protect the rights of fellow citizens?
Wasting one's time is as easy as taking them away from their life for an extended period and offering nothing in return.
We already pay taxes on the items we purchase, the gasoline our vehicles consume, the alcohol we drink, the cigarettes we smoke (if applicable), the property we own, and the wages we earn.
I'd say I've done my service to the government, by funding the thing. To demand more of me than what they already take, and pay me a "wage" only slightly better than the minimum wage in 1940, is what I'd call a waste of time.
Maybe I'm being idealistic, but I believe that people are often motived to do things that aren't, strictly speaking, in their best interest. I do believe that we can do things and do them well for reasons other than personal gain. In fact, from what I've seen of the business world at least, a high wage isn't necessarily a guarantee of a job well done.
There's the rub, though. You aren't given a choice to be motivated to do something.
You're forced to do so. By being threated with imprisonment for not doing it.
That's just enough motivation to get you to drive down to the courthouse, and sit there, bored out of your mind and wishing it was over, pissed as hell the entire time.
I won't lie, when I was forced to sit, I went with the majority of the other jurors. Because any injection of personal opinion would have caused us all to be there longer, and being there for yet another day was unacceptable.
As bad as it sounds, if you pay for crap, you're going to get crap. If they want 5 dollars/day worth of jury service, that's precisely what they should get.
Silly me, I thought this was a relatively benign post. Honestly, if money alone is the only way to: combat an extreme apathy toward the judicial system, encourage an otherwise apathetic juror to actually abide by judicial instruction, and/or sway an individual to let go of apathy in order to not force a mistrial and wreak havoc on a victim's life that has already been forever altered...well then my belief in the inherent goodness of human nature to go beyond themselves for a larger purpose has been misplaced all these years.
Well, look out for #1, you know?
Idealism is all well and good, but you can't eat it.
Warm fuzzies at helping out the judicial system or whatever, won't pay your bills.
As far as I'm concerned, money is the grease that moves society's wheels.
It's not that any random person is inherently bad, but you ARE going to get apathy or irritation, or worse, when you threaten to arrest someone if they don't comply with something they don't want to do in the first place, that takes them away from their own life's concerns.
Post a Comment