🚀 go-pugleaf

"Anon" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message news:<ifa69.84190$UU1.15473@sccrnsc03>...
> "Scott Helms" <shelms1@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:<756bd789.0208130246.bab8e16@posting.google.com>...
> > I'm still wondering why so many people--apparently 90% of the people
> > who have responded to this thread--are in favor of jury duty being
> > compulsory instead of voluntary.  I've asked a couple of the most
> > strident to please explain their philosophy, but they have yet to
> > respond.
> 
> I tried to reply but my post was apparently consumed in cyberspace. I'll
> repeat myself.
> 
> >
> > I've been researching Google and discovered that in general, 80% of
> > people called for jury duty voluntarily show up.  So what would be the
> > point, then, in forcing the other 20% to show up?  How effective would
> > a juror be if they were basically forced at gunpoint to sit on a jury?
> 
> No one is showing up voluntarily. They are showing up under penalty of
> contempt of court charges if they do not. If this was truly voluntary, I
> suspect 80% would not show up and the other 20% would be thoroughly
> non-representative of the population. It would consist of little more than:
> 
> 1. Retirees (jury duty pay will be just gravy for them)
> 2. Unemployed (same)
> 3. People whose employers pay them for time on jury duty
> 4. Zealots who have some agenda they want to carry forward by being jurors.
> 
> But employers will now be motivated not to pay and encourage their employees
> to ignore the summons. So #3 will rapidly dwindle to zero. I have higher
> expectations of the average person's sense of civic duty, but something
> seems to happen to them when they own and operate businesses.
> 

Employers cannot now fire or refuse to pay their employees who are
military Reservists.  There would need to be the same sort of law for
jurors.  That way, when you're called up on jury duty, the employer
would still pay you your normal salary.  Plus you'd be getting paid to
serve on the jury.


> >
> > I gave the original poster a loophole to get out of jury duty because
> > I believe that the most effective jurors are those who serve
> > voluntarily.  Someone serving against their will cannot possibly
> > uphold justice and impartiality.  They'll just vote to convict so they
> > can get out of there!
> >
> 
> You give people too little credit. Millions have been drafted into military
> service and performed  their duties faithfull (and sometimes heroically)
> 

That's true, but ask any general, and they'll tell you that they'd
much rather command an army of professional soldiers than conscripts.

I know if I were on trial, I would prefer to have all 12 jurors be
there voluntarily.  I'd want to know that they'd take the time to
weigh the evidence and not be in a rush to convict.


> > So, if you support forced jury duty, please explain your philosophy.
> > Don't just say it's a "civic duty" because that just begs the
> > question.  Give me some sound logic for your position.
> 
> If you are going to dismiss "civic duty" as a reason, I don't really know if
> I can reason with you. Civic duty is one of the lynchpins of every
> functioning social structure.

Are you suggesting that society will collapse if we switch to a system
of voluntary jury duty?

The problem is that saying "you must _________ because it's a civic
duty" is a non-argument.  You could fill in the blank with anything
from "give 3 years of your life to the Hitler Youth" to "pay 90% of
your income to the government."