Nebula said:
You see as much as you refuse to accept that jury duty is a civic responsibility - and I might add a privilege that not every one gets -the very reasons you cite for not serving are the very reasons you SHOULD serve. Jurors deliberate. Who knows, your position might keep someone from going to prison.
The larger problem isn't the idea of citizens serving as jurors but rather the sheer number of times this duty/burden is imposed upon the average citizen. As I said, for many it has become a yearly ritual. If you happen to get impaneled then you're free for the next four years in NYS but as you said that rarely happens. More often than not the average person nowadays spends up to a week every single year going to court waiting to be impaneled. If there was a once or twice in a lifetime limitation on being called, regardless of whether you're actually impaneled, I would probably have little problems with the system. Heck, I might have even considered volunteering at a time in my life when things were slow just to get it over with. However, once a year, or even twice if the feds have you on the list also, is just too much. In the end I don't feel you and I differ much on our positions here. I just feel the frequency of jury trials these days, and hence the need for jurors, is excessive, in part thanks to the plethora of frivolous lawsuits.
I should also add that another reason I might not be able to serve regardless of any desire to do so is the filthy condition of the courtrooms. I was in court once in my life for a cycling violation. See
this post. One reason I couldn't return to court besides not having the time was the filthy condition of the court and some of the people in it. I actually felt myself getting sicker as the day wore on. Next day I had a fever which took a good week to get over. From what I understand most of the NYC courts are this bad or worse. Whether or not this would be accepted as a permanent reason to be kept off the lists I don't know. Anyway, my experiences with the legal system that day removed any shred of respect I had left for it. The judge was a nasty SOB. The court workers were mostly unprofessional (I actually wasn't even on the calender for that day even though I was supposed to be). My complaints to the acting Supreme Court Justice were fruitless (I never got back my $75). My complaints about the law itself to several legislators were equally fruitless since these idiots are keen on making laws against every little thing their constituents complain about without thinking of the effects of these laws. So much for government of, by, and for the people. It seems many of those in the system think citizens exist to serve them rather than the reverse. Others have had similar or worse experiences. Remember that the courts and police only usually have at best a few chances to make a favorable impression. In that regard I give the system a big fat F.
BTW - Both you and Biker Bear should know that there is no requirement under federal or state law - that I am aware of - which requires personal service of a jury summons. A JD summons is deemed served WHEN MAILED. The state only has to "prove" that the summons was mailed. That my friend is easily done. As I stated above, Biker Bear got lucky.
And if the person moved, or it really was lost? That would be prosecution without just cause which is exactly something our founding fathers would be livid about. I would
love for the Supreme Court to have a look at this issue. This whole thing reeks of unconstitutionality.
One more thing - The use of the lie detector was deemed unreliable and scientifically inadequate by the United States Supreme Court in 1923. There are a myriad of very good reasons that the lie detector is not used in our courts. The single biggest reason is that it cannot be made to work in a scientifically supportable manner.
1923 technology. I'm aware of modern lie detectors with 1% or lower error rates. This is way better than juries do. I was thinking of a failsafe system of three tests. Fail all three and you're guilty. Pass only one and you're acquitted. The error rate for that would be about 1 in a million. And who knows what technology will exist in the future? We may even have the means to record someone's memories in order to have infallible evidence of guilt or innocence.
Off topic but relevant-the US has a greater percentage of the population incarcerated than just about every other civilized country yet by most measures our citizens are less safe. We simply have too many laws, too many juries, too many lawyers, too many pandering legislators. Something to think about next time you defend the system.
Also, none of my animosity at the system is directed to you personally. You seem to be a very nice and reasonable person. I wish there were more of your kind in the system but sadly this line of work usually attracts sharks or people on power trips. You also mentioned that you were an engineering student at one time. That alone means your thought process is probably more logical than 99% of the other lawyers (and judges) you'll likely encounter in court. I sincerely hope you try to make the system better from within, and to make it more responsive to the concerns of your fellow citizens. It sadly seems we're heading in the opposite direction these days. The result is people like myself who are totally disenfranchised. One day soon if things stay the same I may just pick up and live in Antarctica or some other place as far away from this nonsense as possible.
