🚀 go-pugleaf

"Scott Helms" <shelms1@charter.net> wrote in message
news:756bd789.0208190627.873365a@posting.google.com...
> "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."

You're not a kid anymore so puhlease lose the ATTITUDE against authority.