About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Friday, July 22, 2005 - 9:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Does anyone else here find the fact that citizen's in the US are expected to perform Jury Duty for $9 a day repulsive?  Where did $9 a day come from anyway, was that a fair wage in like 1823?  I think that under the current system, the least that can be offered is payment equal to your lost wages, which could be proven by a pay stub or tax form, plus expenses.  Anything else is a form of slavery.  I also like the fact that they pay a wage that is less than the "minimum wage" that they decree others pay.  I would love to ask the judge, the bailiff, the court clerk, the lawyers if they wish to perform their duties for free, and if not why should I? 

Post 1

Friday, July 22, 2005 - 10:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes, I think we could do fine with a voluntary system.  There must be plenty of senior citizens, or others who don't need to work, who would get a kick out of serving on juries.

Post 2

Friday, July 22, 2005 - 10:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The judge:

“Son, I strongly urge you to monitor your tone in my courtroom. Now sit back down.”

The lawyers, whispering:
A: “Which one?”
B: “The one standing right there.”
A: “He said what?”
B: “Something about the bailiff doesn’t make minimum wage and would we work for free.”
A: “He asked if we would work for free? Ha! He’s still ranting. Are they going to take him out? They are! Look! He’s cuffed and out of here!”

Post 3

Friday, July 22, 2005 - 10:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Current jury duty situation is clearly involuntary servitude, but if the SCOTUS rejected arguments on those grounds against conscription (as it did in WWI), don't expect that fact to be legally acknowledged any time soon.


Post 4

Friday, July 22, 2005 - 11:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Really, Kurt, don’t underestimate the experience itself as a form of recompense. Also, courts exist to protect your rights, they are there performing that legitimate government function 24/7, so you are benefiting from them, and this too can be seen as a form of your recompense.

I’ve been on only one jury and I value the experience greatly. It was a federal case. I knew that, and I knew that it was titled: Jerry G. v Janet Reno. I went crazy! Did she fondle him inappropriately? What could this be? Could be huge. Could be writing a book this time next year! I made it through a couple more eliminations and then I was seated for the case.

He worked for the local federal prison and sued the Justice department (his employer) for wrongful employment termination and she gets the honors as Secretary of Justice Dept. So it wasn’t quite as exciting as I had hoped, but a rich experience nonetheless.

Jon

Post 5

Friday, July 22, 2005 - 12:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It might be $9 per day where Kurt Eichert is.  It is different in different places.  In Phoenix, the rules are $12 per day, plus 34½¢ per mile round trip -- or  you can be reimbursed for travel with city bus tickets. 
http://phoenix.gov/COURT/juryduty.html#PAYMENT

On the other hand
FEES:  Jurors are paid $17.50 per half-day, and $35.00 per full day, for jury service attendance.  Mileage from your home to the courthouse is reimbursed at the federal set rate, currently .405 cents per mile (round trip).  Jurors serving a full-day of jury service may receive a $4.00 meal allowance stipend. 
(Portage County "in the heart of Wisconsin.")
http://www.co.portage.wi.us/Clerk%20Of%20Courts/jury_service.htm

In Delaware County, Pennsylvania:
Will I receive payment for jury duty?
Jurors receive $9.00 a day for the first three days of service. Beginning on the fourth day, the rate increases to $25.00 per day. Jurors also receive mileage for each day of service. The amount is 17 cents per mile which is calculated from post office to post office (Media).
http://www.co.delaware.pa.us/jguide/questions.html#8

U.S. District Court for Salt Lake City, Utah, pays $40 per day plus 40.75 cents per mile.  If you have to travel more than 80 miles one-way (realistic out west), then you can use up to $118 per day for hotel plus $8 for parking in addition to the $40.
http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/documents/jury_pay.html

Moreover, many employers, especially large corporations (though small companies, also), government entities and quasi-government entities (universities, for instance) will pay your salary while you are on jury duty.  In such cases, you may have to declare the money paid to you for jury duty to be deducted from your daily wages -- but not in all  A South Dakota judge ruled that the two situations, work and jury duty, are not related.
http://www.state.sd.us/attorney/applications/documents/oneDocument.asp?DocumentID=433

Personally, I am sorry that there is no way to link that with consequences. In other words, an employer who does not pay regular wages (without regard to jury duty payments) -- or a person who does not want to serve on a jury -- should just lose their right to trial by jury.  There is no way to make that work, of course, so it is just a sentiment, not a proposal. 

Laure Chipman wrote: "Yes, I think we could do fine with a voluntary system.  There must be plenty of senior citizens, or others who don't need to work, who would get a kick out of serving on juries."

And that's who you want on your jury?  I have a hard enough time with the theory that people who know nothing at all are best qualified to make the hardest choices. 

There are two theories of government at work here.  At the local level, for instance, city council is often unpaid or lowly paid.  Here in Ann Arbor, city council is $13,000 per year and county board of commissioners is $13,000 to $18,000 per year.  We do not want public service to be lucrative because we do not want people to pursue it for the wages alone. That is based on some altruist-collectivist ideas about money and social class.

Should we pay, say $1000 a day for jury duty and have American Bar Association or American Arbitration Association certification for jurors?  Should we have community college classes in Juroring, like we do for court reporting or law enforcement, so you have an associate's in jury duty and compete for jobs based on qualifications and experience?  Would that be better?

Would people render better verdicts knowing that they might affect their future employment as jurors?

We are promised a jury of our "peers" in a society that has no legal recognition of "peerage."  The Green Party is not alone among leftists in advocating for juries constructed for the race and gender of the accused.  So, do I want a jury of Siculo-Magyars?  Do I want a jury of Objectivists?  Do I want a jury of 56-year old men without male pattern baldness?  Blood type B positives? Aircraft pilots?  Numismatists?  All of the above?

I work for myself.  If I serve on a jury, there is no paycheck, except that from the court.  Even so, I consider it a small price to pay for the benefit of having trials by juries

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 7/22, 12:17pm)


Post 6

Friday, July 22, 2005 - 12:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The $9 a day I think is the area I was speaking of, and it isn't me but someone I know.  Either way, all of thise $ amounts are trivial.  Maybe it has some intrinsic value, maybe not, there is no way to know or decide that for someone. 

I just think payment of an amount equal to lost time is reasonable, and should certainly not be paid by the employer, because that is the same stunt the government pulls with everything else, like social security for instance.  If they pay everyone else involved, why not a just compensation for jurors equal to wages lost?  I can't see that as causing any financial hardships, and it would make fewer productive individuals wish to find ways to get out of it.


Post 7

Friday, July 22, 2005 - 12:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I favor paying 2-3 times actual wages lost, for the, you know, inconvenience. Just like a fair eminent domain taking.

Jon

Post 8

Friday, July 22, 2005 - 12:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Should we have community college classes in Juroring, like we do for court reporting or law enforcement, so you have an associate's in jury duty and compete for jobs based on qualifications and experience? Would that be better?"

From your context I take it you consider these bad things and mean the questions rhetorically, but they sound like pretty good ideas to me.


Post 9

Friday, July 22, 2005 - 12:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Because 'duty has no price' - is considered part and parcel of being in society, and what money is being paid stems from 'peasant revolt' for being too much a hardship if no renumeration...

As for a 'jury of my peers' - the LAST thing the prosecutor wants is an intelligent, educated jury, which would be my peers... the dumber they be, the easier the flim-flamming... that is why it is so hard to get 'fully informed jury' members on juries...


Post 10

Friday, July 22, 2005 - 1:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I served on a jury once, when I was in school in North Carolina. I missed a few days of school but I actually found it quite entertaining. I was elected foreperson of my jury - oddly - due to fervent speeches by several men on the jury. As I recall, one woman had a problem with it because I was "too young," she thought it would send the message that we hadn't taken things seriously enough. We spent more time deliberating over this than the actual verdict, I think.


Post 11

Friday, July 22, 2005 - 1:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

Why do you think that senior citizens and others who don't need to work "know nothing at all"???

Now, it could be that people who volunteer for jury duty might be more inclined to do it in order to "put the bad guys away."  Not sure if that would be the case.


Post 12

Friday, July 22, 2005 - 1:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oops, I may have misunderstood you.  Maybe you are talking about the different issue of having people on the jury who have no knowledge about the case being tried?  I agree that I don't want illiterates who are unaware of the events around them on my jury...

Post 13

Friday, July 22, 2005 - 1:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Aaron asked: From your context I take it you consider these bad things and mean the questions rhetorically, but they sound like pretty good ideas to me."

Do not presume.  I tossed them out as suggestions, along with the suggestion that anyone who does not want to serve on a jury should forgo trial by jury.

I am not sure what the answer is.  I do know that our system does not allow for education in jurying.  I believe that it might be a good idea to have people trained in it. That is why I suggested it.  Again, though, there would be consequences.  Could you give an unpopular verdict without it affecting your "job" as a juror in the future?  On the other hand, of course, we like to think that in a rational society, a juror known to make the tough choices would be in demand. 

We would have to think this through from scratch because the entire system is predicated on other assumptions.

If you look at the American Arbitration Association, they have other modes and standards and they are free market.  They also do not deal with criminal matters.

Our public court system confuses civil and criminal law.  That might be one basic problem to solve first.  We think that the government has a duty to protect the lives of its citizens, etc., etc.... but that is not necessarily arguable from first principles.  In fact, in Western tradition, the ancient Athenians had no law against murder until the tyrant Drakon (Draco) whose interference in private matters like murder led to our calling all  harsh laws "draconian."

If someone causes you a loss, is that a civil or a criminal matter?  It seems to me that objectively, a "criminal" case could only be one involving the citizen and the government, like not paying taxes, for instance.  Disputes between citizens are civil matters. 

Once we define those issues, then we might know which are better resolved by juries finding facts to give judges the power to mete out punishment.  We might also then know which problems are better solved by arbitration to bring two parties back into balance.


Post 14

Friday, July 22, 2005 - 2:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon Letendre wrote: "From your context I take it you consider these bad things and mean the questions rhetorically, but they sound like pretty good ideas to me."

Well, yes, I appreciate that!  The problems would include wanting to keep the cost down by only taking jurors whose wages are low to begin with.


Post 15

Friday, July 22, 2005 - 6:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Let's take the "duty" out of jury duty.

I served on a jury once. I loved the experience. The case, a simple purse snatching, was both interesting and amusing. It involved drugs (a witness, who placed the defendant at the scene, had been with him in a car before and after the theft; at the time the witness had been getting high on paint thinner) and sex (the defendant had knocked up the witness' sister.)

When we went into the jury room to deliberate, we took a quick poll before discussion. There were ten "not guilties," one hesitant "guilty" and one definitive "guilty." I, of course, was the definitive one. The "not guilties" thought the prosecution hadn't made its case because they thought the victim hadn't positively identified the defendant. But she had. What happened was the defense attorney had intentionally confused the victim on the stand and obviously confused most of the jurors also. When I pointed out that the victim had made a positive identification, we requested to have that particular testimony read back to us. Upon hearing the testimony again, we reached an immediate and unanimous guilty verdict.

A few years later, I ran into the prosecuting attorney at a school function. He remembered the case vividly. The judge on the case hadn't heard a criminal case in some time and was "rusty" on the law and procedures. He kept calling a former state Attorney General for advice, however, the former AG was the father of the defense attorney. When the prosecuting attorney objected to this, the judge threatened him with contempt and being thrown in jail.

It was twenty-four years ago I served. Haven't been called since.


Post 16

Friday, July 22, 2005 - 7:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
jury duty. I was selected once. And like yourself, thought about the $12 a day. Without hesistation, I fudged my selection questions so I could return  to work. Did I do the wrong thing? Perhaps. Did I care? no. It was a petty theft case. But I often think about placing monetary value on a privilege I have that many people do not. Some people do not even make that much a day nor are they able to receive a fair trial if they need it. hmmmm....jbrad

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.