Jury-Duty Observations from Juror No. 7

[Redfish Hunter]

When someone does all they can to avoid jury duty to they give up their right to complain about the justice system? Do they give up their right to complain about the stupidity of the jury, the lawyers, and the judges?

Have you ever proclaimed or complained in court that the jury/lawyers/judge are stupid?

To do that would be stupid. It would also be what is known as contempt of court. That is a feeling I don't have and it is a crime I do not intend to commit.

My point was that the very people who take such pride in avoiding jury duty are often the ones who do the most complaining with regards to the quality of the judicial system.

So, if you had such a feeling, what would be stopping you is a fear of contempt of court. The laws pertaining to which, I am well aware of and hence my query.

Besides, what is anyone gaining or achieving by acquiescing to jury duty within the current system, and not doing anything about the prevalent or perceived stupidity of the jury, lawyers or the judges, that others are therefore also not achieving by not participating? A big zip zilch nada.

Moreover, is the concept of civil disobedience so stupid or foreign to you that you would postulate a theory as baseless as - "Chosen non-participation in a process is akin to giving up your right to complain or ask for a change in that process".

We have already established that you are not stupid, but the give up their rights comment was pretty damned stupid.

Well, perhaps I am too stupid but I don't agree with you at all.

If the judge and the lawyers are stupid, and they probably are not, and I am given the opportunity to serve on a jury where my opinion counts just as much as any other member of that jury, then I have a very good chance of projecting (arguably!) some intelligence into the outcome. If I choose to "get out of" this duty, I also forfeit my opportunity to make a difference in the outcome of the trial. Civil disobedience is a courageous and noble method. I cannot equate the noble concept of civil disobedience with someone making a redneckish asinine comment to the judge in the hope of being dismissed. I would think of civil disobedience as a courageous and honest protest to the judge. Making a ******* comment to the judge in the hope of "getting out of jury duty" is not noble or courageous and cannot be likened to civil disobedience. Therefore it is my opinion that anyone who does this must realize that they had a chance to make a difference and gave up that chance. Along with this I think they forfeit their right to *****.

The other factor, at the risk of sounding completely childish is the matter of justice with regards to the defendant and the plaintiff. Perhaps someone or several someones will suffer undeserved misery at the hands of a jury that desperately needed someone like you or me. That thought is one my conscience cannot handle.

Oh, and to beat a dead horse, I think you are plenty smart enough to know that "the give up their rights comment" was not a comment, it was a question.

 

[odot]

I'm tellin' ya, fish.....you need to be an admin here.

 

[puppychow]

When someone does all they can to avoid jury duty to they give up their right to complain about the justice system? Do they give up their right to complain about the stupidity of the jury, the lawyers, and the judges?

Have you ever proclaimed or complained in court that the jury/lawyers/judge are stupid?

To do that would be stupid. It would also be what is known as contempt of court. That is a feeling I don't have and it is a crime I do not intend to commit.

My point was that the very people who take such pride in avoiding jury duty are often the ones who do the most complaining with regards to the quality of the judicial system.

So, if you had such a feeling, what would be stopping you is a fear of contempt of court. The laws pertaining to which, I am well aware of and hence my query.

Besides, what is anyone gaining or achieving by acquiescing to jury duty within the current system, and not doing anything about the prevalent or perceived stupidity of the jury, lawyers or the judges, that others are therefore also not achieving by not participating? A big zip zilch nada.

Moreover, is the concept of civil disobedience so stupid or foreign to you that you would postulate a theory as baseless as - "Chosen non-participation in a process is akin to giving up your right to complain or ask for a change in that process".

We have already established that you are not stupid, but the give up their rights comment was pretty damned stupid.

Well, perhaps I am too stupid but I don't agree with you at all.

If the judge and the lawyers are stupid, and they probably are not, and I am given the opportunity to serve on a jury where my opinion counts just as much as any other member of that jury, then I have a very good chance of projecting (arguably!) some intelligence into the outcome. If I choose to "get out of" this duty, I also forfeit my opportunity to make a difference in the outcome of the trial. Civil disobedience is a courageous and noble method. I cannot equate the noble concept of civil disobedience with someone making a redneckish asinine comment to the judge in the hope of being dismissed. I would think of civil disobedience as a courageous and honest protest to the judge. Making a ******* comment to the judge in the hope of "getting out of jury duty" is not noble or courageous and cannot be likened to civil disobedience. Therefore it is my opinion that anyone who does this must realize that they had a chance to make a difference and gave up that chance. Along with this I think they forfeit their right to *****.

The other factor, at the risk of sounding completely childish is the matter of justice with regards to the defendant and the plaintiff. Perhaps someone or several someones will suffer undeserved misery at the hands of a jury that desperately needed someone like you or me. That thought is one my conscience cannot handle.

Oh, and to beat a dead horse, I think you are plenty smart enough to know that "the give up their rights comment" was not a comment, it was a question.

I appreciate the correction, then however, your "give up their rights" question, was a stupid question and not a stupid comment. Does that make it any better?

Where in your very well thought out counter argument did you not assume that the person trying to get out of jury duty is only just "hoping" to do so and not expressly trying to do so because he/she doesn't agree with the process of jury selection and/or the way prospective jurors are just hung around waiting for something to happen, which more often than not doesn't. You also assume and prejudge that any such attempt or intention is a dumb-*** method or a red-neckish and asinine method and not worthy of being classified as civil disobedience. Non cooperation comes in various forms . Apparently according to you civil disobedience is only effective or honorable when one goes to jail for it and not when one attempts to not cooperate without finding oneself behind bars. In your interpretation courageousness disobedience also equals stupidity. I don't think I agree.

You were also assuming that the person's complaint is about being able to make a difference in the outcome of the trial and not about the process of being subject to the antics of the system before (and if) they could even get to a trial. That's a lot of assumptions for an apparently very smart guy.

As for a plaintiff and/or defendant suffering undeserved misery at the hands of a jury that doesn't want to be there. That's my point exactly - if they don't believe in the process, they should not be there for that precise reason. However, their not wanting or attempting to not be there because they do not like or agree with the process, doesn't invalidate their legitimate gripes against the process.

Even if they participated in the process, unless and until they actually - first make it to a courtroom over which they have no control and second make it through a jury selection process over which they also have no control and third actually get to serve in a jury and deliberate or deliver a verdict (which more often than not doesn't happen) - there is jack **** they could have done or have done other than suffer the system. Unless they are actually on a jury which had a chance to deliberate and deliver justice - what have they done with their man hours multiplied many times over, which could have otherwise been spent in a productive manner?

In summation. I don't think we disagree on the importance of justice being appropriately and conscientiously delivered. Where we disagree is, and correct me if I am wrong, is the acquiescence to the current system of corralling said jury. Also worth adding is that I don't want this to escalate any further, even if I may have initially lit the fuse. Obviously you and I have very different opinions and interpretations. You are entitled to yours and I should respect that, and I am entitled to mine, but it seems there is at least some common ground. I am going to leave it at that.

 

[SacramentoMike]

Sam, what the f*** are you talking about?

That was a rhetorical question. PLEASE don't answer it.

 

[puppychow]

Sac Mike, what the f*** are you even asking? It was just as good a rant as any. Just too dang confusing for your old head again? (I am not being mean folks, he will get that reference, maybe, he is really old after all..). Unless you were just looking to hit and run, in which case, consider that done, so run along and https://www.fjrforum.com/forum//public/style_emoticons/default/****.gif you too.

 

[SacramentoMike]

I was afraid you wouldn't be able to resist coming back AGAIN, Sam, judging by your long series of over-long posts arguing your point about your fanciful interpretation about somebody' real motivation for ducking jury duty. I was just hoping you'd just let it drop. Didn't really expect it, but hoped. How about now? Again, I doubt it. Tell you what. Go ahead and reply once more. I'll let you get the last word. Please.

 

[odot]

werd

 

[puppychow]

I was afraid you wouldn't be able to resist coming back AGAIN, Sam, judging by your long series of over-long posts arguing your point about your fanciful interpretation about somebody' real motivation for ducking jury duty. I was just hoping you'd just let it drop. Didn't really expect it, but hoped. How about now? Again, I doubt it. Tell you what. Go ahead and reply once more. I'll let you get the last word. Please.

Ahh I see sarcasm is the sole domain of grumpy ol' farts like you. Pardon my intrusion then. I will let you be so you can enjoy spending your last few golden years indulging your passive aggressiveness, judging other's fanciful interpretations. I had chosen to forget the type you belong to. The type who stands around in a parking lot joking about and having fun speculating about a missing rider, and then lies about it later to save false face.

So, thank you for the opportunity to tell you that with "friends" like you. Who needs enemies? Then again, who needs or deserves "friends" like you anyway?

Thanks once again for your permission to respond and for "letting" me have the last word. I am very appreciative of your magnanimity and I am very sorry to have offended and disappointed the high and mighty grumps like you, and for not doing what you hoped or expected me to do. I should have known better. When you drew me to respond (even if jokingly) to your idiotic hit and run, I should have known, that you have been doing this for a very long time, and if I stooped to your idiocy, you would beat me by sheer experience.

So, be happy. Goodbye and good riddance. Now to go find that "block false friends" option on the forum.

 

[TheZsdad]

I've got jury duty this coming Friday. Going to be a hardship if I get selected. Normally

I would not mind but my wife has to leave town next Monday and the damn dog sitter

gets $18 a visit and these frickin dogs piss and $hit all day.

 

[Bounce]

That usually doesn't get a nod as a hardship from the judge. Invalid and underage dependants do.

 

[TheZsdad]

That usually doesn't get a nod as a hardship from the judge. Invalid and underage dependants do.

Not sure why when you can get a pet sitter to take them out for $18 a visit.

Guess I'll have to work on the attorney questions. In truth I am moving out of state.

Wife will be looking for rental.

 

[Redfish Hunter]

Where in your very well thought out counter argument did you not assume that the person trying to get out of jury duty is only just "hoping" to do so and not expressly trying to do so because he/she doesn't agree with the process of jury selection and/or the way prospective jurors are just hung around waiting for something to happen, which more often than not doesn't. You also assume and prejudge that any such attempt or intention is a dumb-*** method or a red-neckish and asinine method and not worthy of being classified as civil disobedience. Non cooperation comes in various forms . Apparently according to you civil disobedience is only effective or honorable when one goes to jail for it and not when one attempts to not cooperate without finding oneself behind bars. In your interpretation courageousness disobedience also equals stupidity. I don't think I agree.

You were also assuming that the person's complaint is about being able to make a difference in the outcome of the trial and not about the process of being subject to the antics of the system before (and if) they could even get to a trial. That's a lot of assumptions for an apparently very smart guy.

As for a plaintiff and/or defendant suffering undeserved misery at the hands of a jury that doesn't want to be there. That's my point exactly - if they don't believe in the process, they should not be there for that precise reason. However, their not wanting or attempting to not be there because they do not like or agree with the process, doesn't invalidate their legitimate gripes against the process.

Even if they participated in the process, unless and until they actually - first make it to a courtroom over which they have no control and second make it through a jury selection process over which they also have no control and third actually get to serve in a jury and deliberate or deliver a verdict (which more often than not doesn't happen) - there is jack **** they could have done or have done other than suffer the system. Unless they are actually on a jury which had a chance to deliberate and deliver justice - what have they done with their man hours multiplied many times over, which could have otherwise been spent in a productive manner?

In summation. I don't think we disagree on the importance of justice being appropriately and conscientiously delivered. Where we disagree is, and correct me if I am wrong, is the acquiescence to the current system of corralling said jury. Also worth adding is that I don't want this to escalate any further, even if I may have initially lit the fuse. Obviously you and I have very different opinions and interpretations. You are entitled to yours and I should respect that, and I am entitled to mine, but it seems there is at least some common ground. I am going to leave it at that.

I really should just leave this one alone but I am too stupid.

You ask where I assumed that the person trying to get out of jury duty isn't doing so because they disagree with process of jury selection. You say I prejudge and assume. You say that my definition of civil disobedience requires going to jail.

First of all, your assumptions are incorrect. For one thing I never mentioned going to jail as part of the definition of civil disobedience. It does not matter what the reason is for trying to avoid jury duty. If a person wants out of it, rather than make a redneck, asinine statement, that person needs to stand before the judge and tell the truth. If they genuinely want to change the system, they need both courage and honesty. I fail to see how a person who truly wants to change the system would expect to affect that change by not saying what they really want. Going to jail would hopefully not be part of the process. Of course in my experience, those with great personal courage often have great personal integrity as well. In my experience a person with courage and integrity usually has a sense of civic duty as well. Forgive me my ignorance but I don't know very much about how cowards and liars operate, therefore I can not address how they would handle "civil disobedience".

I completely agree with you about the uselessness of an unhappy jury. Certainly such a jury does none of the participants any good and only wastes the time of the system and the money of the unfortunate litigators.

As a counter for your argument about the wasted time of the jury sitting there and never getting to pass a judgement, I offer this: A "guilty" defendant sits watching the lawyers argue and posture in front of the jury. He and his lawyer both realize that the jury is not buying their side of things. They decide to cop a plea. The jury never passes a judgement but their very presence helps force the application of true justice. This is perhaps not satisfying for the jurors, but justice is done anyway.

I am well aware that only a very small percentage respond with joy and happiness to a jury summons. I cannot really blame anyone for not wanting to answer a jury summons. I have to respect the logic of the men who designed the laws regarding trial etiquette and jury selection. It may not be perfect but I do not know of a better or more fair system anywhere in the world. Perhaps if you have a better plan and you are ever summoned for jury duty you might take that opportunity to share it with the judge. I am certain he would appreciate your very well thought out argument.

You might enjoy knowing that this very morning Mrs. Redfish had to answer a jury summons. After a long and mostly unpleasant day, she was selected and has to report again tomorrow morning. She really did not want to go in the first place and certainly did not want to get selected. She of course cannot discuss any of the case until after the trial is over, so I know very little of what transpired today. I know that she takes this sort of responsibility seriously and that she will do her best to see justice is done.

 

[puppychow]

I really should just leave this one alone but I am too stupid.
You ask where I assumed that the person trying to get out of jury duty isn't doing so because they disagree with process of jury selection. You say I prejudge and assume. You say that my definition of civil disobedience requires going to jail.

First of all, your assumptions are incorrect. For one thing I never mentioned going to jail as part of the definition of civil disobedience. It does not matter what the reason is for trying to avoid jury duty. If a person wants out of it, rather than make a redneck, asinine statement, that person needs to stand before the judge and tell the truth. If they genuinely want to change the system, they need both courage and honesty. I fail to see how a person who truly wants to change the system would expect to affect that change by not saying what they really want. Going to jail would hopefully not be part of the process. Of course in my experience, those with great personal courage often have great personal integrity as well. In my experience a person with courage and integrity usually has a sense of civic duty as well. Forgive me my ignorance but I don't know very much about how cowards and liars operate, therefore I can not address how they would handle "civil disobedience".

I completely agree with you about the uselessness of an unhappy jury. Certainly such a jury does none of the participants any good and only wastes the time of the system and the money of the unfortunate litigators.

As a counter for your argument about the wasted time of the jury sitting there and never getting to pass a judgement, I offer this: A "guilty" defendant sits watching the lawyers argue and posture in front of the jury. He and his lawyer both realize that the jury is not buying their side of things. They decide to cop a plea. The jury never passes a judgement but their very presence helps force the application of true justice. This is perhaps not satisfying for the jurors, but justice is done anyway.

I am well aware that only a very small percentage respond with joy and happiness to a jury summons. I cannot really blame anyone for not wanting to answer a jury summons. I have to respect the logic of the men who designed the laws regarding trial etiquette and jury selection. It may not be perfect but I do not know of a better or more fair system anywhere in the world. Perhaps if you have a better plan and you are ever summoned for jury duty you might take that opportunity to share it with the judge. I am certain he would appreciate your very well thought out argument.

You might enjoy knowing that this very morning Mrs. Redfish had to answer a jury summons. After a long and mostly unpleasant day, she was selected and has to report again tomorrow morning. She really did not want to go in the first place and certainly did not want to get selected. She of course cannot discuss any of the case until after the trial is over, so I know very little of what transpired today. I know that she takes this sort of responsibility seriously and that she will do her best to see justice is done.

Fair enough. I said I was going to leave it at that, so I am, even if there are flaws in your anecdotes where you choose to present only one side of the coin. I think you are smart enough to figure out what those are yourself, but there are also some points I may actually agree with. In my experience, I have oft witnessed people who boast of courage, integrity, duty and honor, and fall short when the situation arises, while others rise to the occasion with nary a word. Clearly, we have had different experiences.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and engaging in a little give and take with me. I enjoyed and appreciate your intellect and your well reasoned responses and I hardly think it was a pointless exercise and it gave me a "feel" of you, I may not otherwise have experienced. I have a feeling you would agree, even if there were times when I was trying your patience, playing the Devil's Advocate. Best regards!

 

[exskibum]

Jeeze, you two. I had to check what forum I'd clicked on. Didn't recognize the FJRforum from this thread, . . . and the lack of reference to burro, sheep and goat sex.

 

[Bounce]

and the lack of reference to burro, sheep and goat sex.

Thank Ged for that.

 

[Redfish Hunter]

Yeah but it is in "Completely Off Topic" so...

I thought I might add that yesterday when my wife was spending her day sitting through jury selection, she was hoping she would not get called. She really was hoping to get out of there because we had plans to go out to celebrate our anniversary. The way things worked out instead of a nice candlelit dinner at an expensive restaurant we had hamburgers I cooked on the gas grill. How romantic...

 

[ionbeam]

..my wife was spending her day sitting through jury selection, she was hoping she would not get called...we had plans to go out to celebrate our anniversary...we had hamburgers I cooked on the gas grill. How romantic...

Take a mulligan and go out for that anniversary dinner this weekend

It isn't the calender date, it is the event being celebrated. Sometimes life gets in the way of plans but that doesn't mean you have to cancel the plans.

 

[gixxerjasen]

..my wife was spending her day sitting through jury selection, she was hoping she would not get called...we had plans to go out to celebrate our anniversary...we had hamburgers I cooked on the gas grill. How romantic...

Take a mulligan and go out for that anniversary dinner this weekend

It isn't the calender date, it is the event being celebrated. Sometimes life gets in the way of plans but that doesn't mean you have to cancel the plans.

This! Although, grilling out can be a good celebration, so long as you end the evening right.

 

[puppychow]

Yeah but it is in "Completely Off Topic" so...
I thought I might add that yesterday when my wife was spending her day sitting through jury selection, she was hoping she would not get called. She really was hoping to get out of there because we had plans to go out to celebrate our anniversary. The way things worked out instead of a nice candlelit dinner at an expensive restaurant we had hamburgers I cooked on the gas grill. How romantic...

Congratulations on your anniversary. Glad you didn't spend it debating ad nauseum with me.

 

[dcarver]

I have oft witnessed people who boast of courage, integrity, duty and honor, and fall short when the situation arises, while others rise to the occasion with nary a word.

Sam, those words ring so true in my life. Some peeps I *knew* I could count on failed miserably when *most* needed and others, not fully appreciated, rose to occasion as true and honorably peeps. I get it. Well said.