Jury duty sucks, is un-American, and stupid

There's something deeply disturbing about jury duty. And I'm not saying that just because I had to be at Salem's downtown courthouse way earlier Monday morning than I'm used to functioning.

I'll get up at 6 am when I want or need to. But it ticks me off big time to get a government letter that says I'm required to do my supposedly "civic duty," and if I don't, a warrant may be issued for my arrest.

I don't understand why this isn't a bigger political issue. Just about everybody hates jury duty, yet Americans meekly put up with this affront to liberty, justice, and my ability to sleep late.

The Libertarian Party (of Michigan, at least) has called for an end to this enforced servitude. Great idea. If Ron Paul had made this a centerpiece of his presidential campaign, maybe I wouldn't have been such a strong Obama supporter:

The current practice of forced jury duty should be replaced by volunteer juries.

As I said the last time I was called for jury duty, in a sardonically titled "Well, that was fun" post, it's like going to the doctor for no good reason.

Getting there right on time and then waiting for three hours. Uncomfortable chairs. Having to fill out forms that ask personal questions. Outdated reading material. Other people being called while you sit… and sit… and sit. Why, I found that jury duty is just like going to the doctor. Except you go to the doctor because you have a problem that needs to be fixed.

With jury duty, the problem is that you are there and you want to be somewhere else. At least, this seemed to be the case with all of my fellow jury duty selectees this morning, and it certainly was with me. Notwithstanding the annoyingly cheery video that we were shown about the patriotic nature of jury duty, how our presence was assuring that the Republic Would Stand, blah, blah, blah, the mood in the jury assembly room for those three hours was seriously sullen.

Last Monday I also spent three wasted hours in that room. About 11:15 am a judge walked in and said, "The defendant has decided to plead guilty. You're excused."

Terrific! I thought.

I'd already decided that the guy was guilty, because if I ended up being picked as a juror, that seemed to be the fastest way to get the trial over: get a quick guilty verdict. I suppose a quick innocent verdict would work just as well, but I was so ticked off at the whole jury duty process, I wanted somebody to be punished.

This is why compulsory duty is so stupid. You've got irritated people, who don't want anything to do with a trial, being forced to render an important decision.

Midway through the morning we were given $1.50 coupons for the snack shop on the first floor and allowed to leave the jury room for twenty minutes. I'd studiously avoided talking with anyone else up to that point, being in a sullen mood. So I decided to say a few words to the guy next to me in line, to avoid looking like a complete jury duty hermit.

"About now is when I wish I'd committed a recent felony," I said, "or when asked about my hobbies on the form we filled out, put down tinkering with new formulations in my basement meth lab." (I assumed the guy hadn't read my blog post from four years ago where I used the same lines.)

He didn't even smile. "Jury duty is required by the Constitution," he said. "We're entitled to a jury of our peers. It's something we have to do."

I persevered. "Well, even though I'm entitled to a jury trial, that doesn't mean I should be forced to serve on a jury. I'd rather have some wise retired volunteers deciding my case who want to be in the courtroom, rather than a bunch of people whose only thought is I don't want to be here."

Permanent panels of judges manage to render verdicts competently. So why can't we have permanent juries made up of citizens selected for their intelligence, fairness, and willingness to listen to boring testimony for long hours?

Call me an elitist, but I'd just as soon not have a "jury of my peers" if that means having average Americans decide my case. Some of the people with me in the jury assembly room looked to have their wits about them, but not all.

Sherri, forgive me if somehow you happen to read this, but I've got to offer this advice: next time you're called for jury duty, make your personal cell phone calls either before or after.

I was halfway enjoying reading my book, having partially forgotten where I was, until you began having a series of conversations that weren't at all pressing. I really didn't think that Kaiser Permanente was going to assign you a doctor until you were officially enrolled, but it was sort of interesting to hear you try to talk your way into having them change their policy.

However, the lengthy discussion with your friend about baby names went way over the jury room edge for me. The miniscule amount of Buddha nature that I have prevented me from getting up and changing my seat, because I figured you'd recognize it was because of your loud cell phone conversations and I didn't want to hurt your feelings.

I wasn't worried, though, about insulting the security screener at the courthouse entrance. He told me that I couldn't take my Flip Video camera inside and would have to walk six blocks back to my car, then up three flights of stairs to the Marion Parkade roof where I was parked.

"Um, my cell phone also can take videos, and you're letting me have that," I told him. "You can't have a video camera in the courthouse," he replied robotically. "But just about every cell phone nowadays can take videos!" I repeated.

To no avail.

There's no reasoning with a clueless security screener. Or, sadly, with a justice system that considers mandatory jury duty to be a good thing.

Someday this will change, hopefully. For now I'm off the jury duty hook for two years. Maybe the Libertarians will come into power before my name is chosen again.

Comments

[Dee]

I disagree with you on this. If it is volunteers or some group someone picks, you know someone will find a way to make a buck on it or subvert it. I like the idea that we all take turns. I've never had a turn yet, got called once when Brook was a tiny baby so they let me off.

[George Seldes]

Gotta say that while I love most of your stuff, this post rates a big zero. The citizen jury really rates all that praise about "bulwark of liberty" and all that.

Sorry you were inconvenienced, and they definitely ought to be required to pay minimum wage for any time actually spent at the court house, but that's the price you pay -- and a tiny price it is -- for the enormous benefit of NOT having electeds or appointeds make the life or death decisions that affect the commoners (us).

Read Judge Dwyer's book "In the Hands of the People" and Thomas Geoghegan's book "In America's Court" and then write another post about the jury system.

Imagine for a minute that jury duty was optional -- but that the price of electing not to serve on juries was that you were not guaranteed trial by jury if charged with a crime or if you had to sue a big corporation who screwed you over or a doctor whose negligence caused your wife or kid's death. Would you still want to opt out of jury duty so bad?

[Brian]

Well, I respect your contrary opinions. Here's my response:

I'm not against juries. What I'm opposed to are incompetent juries made up of average Americans, my peers.

In most cases, I'd trust the judgment of a skilled, experienced judge, or even a couple of educated, intelligent, unbiased, thoughtful laypeople, over a "jury of my peers."

Witness the OJ Simpson trial, which I watched with obsessive regularity just about every day it was happening. The jury screwed up, big time. This was obvious. What we don't see are the non-obvious screw-ups by juries made up of very ordinary citizens.

Why are jury decisions the only important public decisions made by randomly selected people?

Why don't we randomly select voters and those with driver's licenses to make our laws? Why don't we randomly select generals and admirals to run our military? Why don't we randomly select managers of public pension funds?

For some reason we've come to believe that average people can make exemplary legal decisions. I don't get it. I readily admit that I don't know much about the history of jurisprudence. Yet I still hold that there's something about our jury system that makes little sense.

My wife and I have had a lot of experience watching quasi-legal decisions being made by county commissioners. Mostly, they're terrible at this. They don't understand the law and how to apply facts to statutes.

And these are experienced politicians.
Even less competent (though probably less politically biased) are the average citizens who serve on juries. I sort of admire the trust in the common person that our jury system is founded on, but mostly I distrust it.

That said, I realize that there are good arguments to be made in favor of the current system. I just believe that forcing people to serve on a jury isn't the right thing to do in a democracy.

And even if we stick with required jury service, there still are a lot of any problems with our jury system. A quick Google search turned up a few links of interest, such as:
http://www.uplink.com.au/lawlibrary/Documents/Docs/Doc24.html
and
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2007/04/redesign_our_ju.html

[Brian]

P.S. I also found the Wikipedia entry on juries to be interesting. Americans should realize that other democratic countries have chosen different means of rendering legal decisions. Germany, for example, doesn't use juries at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury

This economist's recommendation to hire jurors also is worth pondering. I agree with some of what he says. Why not find the most competent people for this job? And why should jurors be forced into involuntary servitude when they haven't done anything wrong?
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=14

[Harry Vanderpool]

I once had the EXACT bad attitude that Brian has about helping out our fellow citizens that are in trouble and need me in the jury to free them from the system.
Then I woke up.
all of the answers are here:

www.fija.org

Lets be clear about this:
If I was in trouble, and was looking forward to a jury with heavy hopes that they would see through the legal and procedural lambrinth to clear my fine name, one of the first jurists that I would want is Brian Hines.

But when Brian shows up ready to take action for his fellow citizens as he normally does; does he understand his ACTUAL role in the jury? (answer: NO)
He shows up and the judge gives him very specific "instructions" on what will constitute guilt.
Guess what?
Judges hate the fact that when there is a jury, YOU ARE THE JUDGE!!!!
Each jurist holds the power to decide the case on his or her own JUDGMENT.
The judge is mearly a facilitator. But they have crafted a system that returns all of the power back to them.
DON'T BE FOOLED!!

Brian!!! Your fellow countrymen need you, now more than ever! And you are just the guy that they are hoping for!

Please review:

www.fija.org

And if I'm ever in court because I'm wrongly accused, (I live too boring a life to get in trouble)and I look out at the jury and see you setting there, there will be tears streaming down my cheeks knowing that I will be going home shortly.

BTW, who do you want looking out for you?

www.fija.org

[Harry Vanderpool]

"The primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by government."

www.fija.org

[Gail]

I was selected during voir dire in January of this year, just before leaving for Air Force training. It caused me grief, because I had so much to do to get ready to leave. I was thrilled, however, to do my part as a juror. I was not mad at Uncle Sam for calling upon me to do my DUTY as a U.S. citizen. I can leave this land anytime I wish, so I am not "forced" to do anything here. I am lucky to be here, and I am lucky to have my faculties and reasoning skills, so that I might help provide AMERICAN JUSTICE when a fellow citizen or society needs me. It is not a burden; it is a privilege.

As a current law school student, I will add that there is justifiable reason for most of the legislative/judicial procedures in place. Perhaps, if one were to look beyond the immediate discomfort of having to
"get up early", they might see the larger picture.

American justice may be flawed, but it is all you have when YOU are being charged with an offense that could cause you to lose your most precious of rights -- freedom. Capitalism has no place in the justice system, ideally. Harry V. has said a mouthful, as well.

[Brian]

Gail, I appreciate your point of view. It makes sense. However, we also need to understand that other free democracies take a different approach in their justice systems. Americans tend to think that our way always is the best way, and that we can't learn from Europe or other parts of the world.

I haven't heard of Germans complaining that they are less free because judges decide cases, rather than juries. I have heard lots of complaints about atrocious ill informed jury decisions in this country (again, the OJ Simpson murder trial being the most notorious example).

For me, it comes down to who I'd rather have deciding my fate in a trial: an experienced, competent, unbiased judge, or a jury of average citizens who were selected randomly to be in a jury pool, and then chosen most non-randomly through attorney challenges to best match the biases sought by the prosecution and defense.

I'd take my chances with the judge. I think most people would.

[George Seldes]

Where does one find these "experienced, competent, unbiased" judges?

Through appointment? Then tell me about how well that's worked with Bush's appointments.

Through election? That's how you get hanging judges, because the electorate is fed a steady diet of media hysteria over crime that convinces people that we live in Somalia or Compton rather than Oregon. You live in a state that's bankrupting itself because folks like Mannix have learned to press the buttons of fear that are connected to the channels of power, and the corporations who profit from building prisons and running for-profit prisons would love to see even more "tough on crime" waves.

You want to see some screwed up land use decisions?? Where do candidates get the money to run for seats on the bench? From companies with interests in judicial decisions. All over America we're seeing the corporate lobbies invest millions in judicial elections that were formerly pretty quiet -- now we're seeing the Natl. Assoc. of Manufacturers and the Chamber of Commerce buy judicial seats for their favorites -- who, predictably, have a very pro-corporate way of reading the law.

You don't have to be a full-blown FIJA type to recognize that the disinterested jury has a huge role in limiting the overreach that is typically a feature of prosecutors' desires for higher office.

Your standard seems to be "I watched a big trial where I think the jury screwed it up by acquitting a guy everybody knows did it." Well, there's two points there: first, better ten guilty go free than one guy get sent up for two murders he didn't do.

Second, the Simpson trial illustrates the proof of the old maxim that "There's nothing that says they can't try to frame a guilty man." The prosecution and the judge -- the experts you want to put into all-powerful positions -- screwed that case up something awful; the jury just did what juries are supposed to do: decide whether the prosecution had proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Robert Paul Howard]

Dear Brian,

Your "faith" in (even the existence of) "an experienced, competent, unbiased judge" is the kind of presupposition that would be ripped to shreds by the folks over on your other weblog.

I agree that our system for seeking to attain justice is quite flawed, but I adjudge that you are quite an "elitist" in your opinion/complaint - one mostly pissed off by having a demand made upon you by the society of which you are a part.

Robert Paul Howard

[Brian]

Robert, my point is that other Western democracies do just fine by relying on judges rather than juries.

You're right: I am a elitist, in the sense that I believe some people are more competent to do things than other people.

I wouldn't trust my medical care to someone randomly selected off of voter registration rolls. Nor, my auto repair. Neither would I trust that a panel of randomly selected people would be much better at healing me or getting my car back in running order.

Admittedly, a trial doesn't require the same sorts of knowledge. But making a judicial decision does require critical thinking, an ability to process complex information, awareness of your intrinsic biases, and such.

I still hold that someone trained in the law with special expertise in judicial decision-making is more likely to render a good judgment than someone picked off the street and sat down in a jury seat.

[Robert Paul Howard]

Dear Brian,

Whether a judgment is "good" (or not) rather depends upon one's viewpoint. I rather suspect that O.J.'s judgment of the criminal court's judgment about him was rather more "good" than his judgment about the civil court's judgment about him.

Ditto as applicable to your judgments.

Robert Paul Howard

[Major Variola (ret)]

You are not obligated to
go, you receive an invitation
is all. You cannot be enslaved
by the state, its in the
BoR. Its illegal taking,
involuntary servitude.

Others' rights to something
do not obligate you.

If you do choose to go,
read up on jury nullification
first.

And, let them prove that you
received their letter!

Freedom -if not now, when?

[George Seldes]

Perhaps because you didn't make it onto a jury, you seem not to be aware that juries are known as the "triers of fact" -- that is, the jury is not asked to make any legal judgments (though, as the FIJA people note, it's within their power to do so in a way by acquittals). That is, the judge is the legal expert and the MC for the event --- the judge ensures that both sides follow the procedural rules for presenting evidence and making their case, but what the jury gets are questions of fact -- they are to decide, based on the evidence presented and their credibility judgments, which side made their case.

Everything you say about making "judicial decisions" is true -- it requires special knowledge. That's why juries aren't asked to make them. Instead, juries are asked to make credibility judgments and decide whether the evidence that is presented (by a plaintiff or by a prosecutor) has met the applicable standard (preponderance or beyond a reasonable doubt).

Even in trials about matters of great complexity, the general consensus of judges is that juries most often get it right, despite the fact that they are filled with people who "aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty" as Twain put it.

[Brian]

George, good points. I'd been ignoring the role of judges of jury trials. It does seem true that juries usually get it right. I just continue to wonder whether judges could do the same, and what juries contribute to good decision-making.

[Randy]

Oh boy. Can I pile on too? On your worst post ever.

If I'm ever on trial I want someone like me and you, Brian, on my jury. I insist that you serve.

I actually made it to a jury once. It was a second degree murder case and quite interesting. The guy was guilty of at least assault but was only charged with the higher crime. They couldn't prove it and we had to acquit the guy.
I was fascinated by how the jury worked as we deliberated for many hours. It was a great experience, not a fun or pleasant experience, but a great experience. Sorry you missed it.

[Ariel]

Good job, mate ^_~

[Alisha]

Contray to all these other brainwashed/mindless posts, i TOTALLY agree with you Brain! Wow if these people don't like you speaking your mind (how ironically un-American of them) then they shouldn't feel obligated to comment. It makes me so freakin' mad! Why don't they just go and read blogs on fox.com? You know, ones that don't speak the truth.
I am a libertarian who voted for Obama, and I am glad that somebody FINALLY posted a blog about how un-constitional and archaic the concept of jury duty really is. Glad that somebody actually uses their brain. ;)
It's a fact, jury duty is un-American so your post speaks the truth.
Ironic isn't it, that we still have the outdated Electoral college choose who our president is going to be, which in so many ways defeats the purpose of the public voting in a national election. If anything, it's the three branches of government that are elitist! Having lived in different parts of the world, one tends to open their eyes and see that the US government "ain't all that."
Other countries that don't have jury duty are obviously the more civilized ones. When I first heard about jury duty, being the individual thinker that I am, it rightfully made no sense at all. It still doesn't because frankly the "legel" system is highly flawed.
If they have to force and essentially enslave people to do what they want, then mandatory voting sounds better-afterall there is the absentee ballot and the US has had one of the lowest voter turnouts (before 2008) compared to many other democratic nations. But of course they don't because our voice doesn't actually matter.
Looks like the government only cares about throwing around the term "civic duty" when it's convenient for THEM! Jury duty does not benefit anyone except the opportunist government. It's right up there with the draft. Your blog was spot-on.

[ethan]

The jury system sucks as it is, and while I'm sure there is a better way to do things. For the time being, they could at least tweak a few things in the current system to make it more manageable.

My experience was, I got there at 8:15 and sat in a room until 9:30, at which point I was called in for a case. The asked a few questions and if they applied to you, you raised your hand. Then the judge spoke to each individual in private about why they raised their hand. At 12:30 we broke for a 1 hour break. Then they selected the jury at 4:00. It took an entire day to do something that could have been done in an hour or two tops!

Whenever the government manages anything it is at its inefficient maximum. Perhaps they could hire a consulting firm to show how they can speed things up, and make the experience more enjoyable for the juror.

Thank the Andean Cross, I was called off the jury by the defense. It was a 3 day trial, and for $15 a day I really can't afford it. Parking near the courthouse costs $15.

Also, it being Baltimore City the education level is very very VERY low, I would not want to be tried by a jury of my 'peers'.

[Michael]

Jury duty does suck, but not for the reasons most of us think.

Juries exist for just ONE reason.
Juries have the power to invalidate stupid laws.

We have Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion because of juries. These "fundamental rights" were quite radical in their day, but well established when the constitution was drafted. (Google "Peter Zenger" and "William Penn" trials for more)

Jury power is one of the fundamental checks and balances designed into our political system.

"Juror Nullification" is designed into the system.

When applying some law just shocks the conscience of the average person, at least one person in 12 will rebel.

Fugitive slave laws and alcohol prohibition all ended by juries refusing to enforce unjust laws.

[Brian]

Both of my experiences with jury duty have soured me on the whole "it's your civic duty" argument.

The first time involved a five day trial over the custody of a dying greyhound.A judge could've decided it in a day. Instead, the attorneys insisted on a jury. However, right after the final statements and recess was called, those bastards got together and asked the judge to rule in our place. I went to the court house the next day only to be told that it was over. They couldn't even be bothered to telephone me beforehand.

Second experience. Came at 7:30 on Thursday; was assign to a courtroom at 9:30; told that the court was not "ready" until 11:00 and I had to wait some more; waited, then told again to hang around until 1:30; waited once more until 2:00 before the prospective jurors were let in; judge then gave a long winded speech for an hour, then dragged his foot on screening the jurors. Finally, at 4:30, he told us that he "appreciated us for doing our civic duty" and told us to come back on Monday (since the court is closed on Friday). I did nothing but waited all day and now I get a second chance at it!

[van g]

watch 12 angry men

shows how juries acted

yet that one man was able to convince them all

i doubt there's anyone like him out there nowadays

avoid jury if you careless for the life at stake

ill probably prefer a bench trial because the judge is no joke at his/her skills

unless the judge and prosecutor are on the same side then you'll need a million dollar lawyer.

sad that juries or judge determine one's life and no truth needs to come forth.

[Petie]

There are lots of things in life that someone is forced to do. The flu may force you out of commission for a couple of days. A car may break down, forcing temporary immobility and a gruesome repair bill. A person may expire at any time, which is surely inconvenient. Jury Duty's just one of those things. But for a good cause.

Is it inconvenient? For most people, yes. But not for the party in the defendant's chair who trusts you, their peers, over a single judge. I'm surprised the Libertarian Party would take such a stand against Jury Duty. They're all against gov't control, but are willing to allow a single judge total power rather than peers (the people)? Well, that's the Libertarian flakiness that urged me to leave them for the Constitution Party.

Anywho, the justice system is far from perfect, but the lawyers, judges, and juries help create a system that's better than most. And infinately better than some kangaroo court systems. So, it's a civic duty to sacrifice your time every once in awhile for the good of your neighbors. If you're really hard pressed for time, chances are very good you can be excused lawfully. Or at the very least, act like a loon, fall asleep, or cop an attitude during questioning and they'll happily dismiss you. Then you're only out for half a day or so.

Just chalk it up as one of many life's unavoidable inconveniences. And thank God it's only Jury duty and not the flu, being laid up in the hospital, or drafted. It's only Jury Duty, one of the few instances aside from voting where you , the citizen have real influence.

[Drew]

Jury Duty is nothing more than a Legal Hostage situation...except no one is coming to save you. You are forced to stay in a smelly humid room with hundreds of other hostages waiting for a reprieve.

It goes completely against the 13th amendment.

The 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution officially abolished and prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude.

Involuntary servitude is forcing a person to labor against that person's will to benefit another, Jury duty is involuntary servitude and needs to be abolished.