Getting out of jury duty

[Morgaine]

I somehow ended up getting called twice this summer. Once for County & once for local. For both, I was excused because I have children under 10YO who would have no care outside of school hours. I was surprised the kid cutoff was 10 because everything I've heard says that kids are suppose to be 12YO or older to be left alone for any length of time. The only hiccup was that we went on vacation & had the mail held so I called the courthouse to find out if I'd been excused & the lady I talked to was incredibly rude.
I wouldn't care if I was called for jury duty. I do know a couple of guys who are attorneys so that could exclude me but that's a big 'what if'.

[Esprise Me]

I tried to beg off jury duty twice on the grounds that, as a waitress and student, I would be facing a financial hardship by giving up weeks of tip income. It worked in California; after I went through the pre-screening process (or whatever it's called) for a trial expected to last three weeks, and gave my reason, I was dismissed from that case and then told I was free to go. I was actually a little disappointed; I would have liked to serve on a short case, but taking off the better part of a month during the busiest season at the restaurant the summer before college was going to put a real dent in my savings. The same excuse didn't fly in Massachusetts; they didn't care that I had rent to pay and textbooks to buy, they were not going to excuse me from a monthlong case. Luckily, the case apparently imploded after two days, so I was off the hook.

I'm still really hoping I get called for a short case. I'd like to be part of the system; I just don't want to end up on the street as a result.

[mouse goddess]

They only seem to call me when I can't.
I was called twice as an out of town college student.
Once while 8 mos. pregnant,
Once with a 2mo newborn.

Now sadly, I don't think I'll be able to do it for a long time, with my kids at home.

[Bozone]

Sorry to dredge up an old thread, but I haven't been here for a long time and saw this. It's true:

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com...30jurynote.txt

I remember being disappointed that there was basically no punishment, but it's probably better that he wasn't on a jury.

I live in the next town and have been on the list numerous times, actually had to go to the courthouse three times, one of which settled before they began interviewing prospective jurors. The other two times I was selected to sit on the jury. Both cases only lasted the day and I thought the jurors deliberated well -none of the "too stupid to get out of it" kind. It's interesting and worth doing. But I would hate to be a juror on a trial that lasts for weeks.

[TripleAAA]

If you don't want to serve on a jury, don't register to vote?

Or switch a shift so you still get enough money.

[lord_feldon]

Originally Posted by TripleAAA

If you don't want to serve on a jury, don't register to vote?

Unless your jurisdiction uses other types of records.

[Hero_Mike]

Originally Posted by AnglRdr

Don't think much of your fellow man, huh?

If it's good to be skeptical about religion, advertising, urban legends and wikipedia, then why not my fellow man? Certainly the average person hasn't done much, if anything, for me, and may very well do me harm or take advantage of me if they believe that they can get away with it.
I often believe that people who are charged with crimes, have in fact, committed them. The old "where there's smoke, there's fire" philosophy. It makes sense, too that our criminal justice system has limited resources and brings it upon themselves only to prosecute where a conviction is likely, which would imply that they do so, only when the accused is really and truly guilty.

Pessimism may not be "nice", but it is "safe".

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by TripleAAA

Or switch a shift so you still get enough money.

Not all jobs offer shift work, and those that do don't necessarily have an opening on another shift when you need one.

[AnglRdr]

Originally Posted by Hero_Mike

If it's good to be skeptical about religion, advertising, urban legends and wikipedia, then why not my fellow man?

Skepticism, when it is warranted, is a good thing. Couching one's misanthropy in a skeptic's clothing is a whole other sack o' taters.

Certainly the average person hasn't done much, if anything, for me, and may very well do me harm or take advantage of me if they believe that they can get away with it.

This is a very paranoid view. The average person doesn't even acknowledge your existence, much less plot about how to take advantage of you.

Pessimism may not be "nice", but it is "safe".

I would hate to go through life with such a jaundiced eye.

[Syllavus]

I would be honored and pleased to be a juror. I've been called twice but only had to go to the court once. Everyone was sent home that day and I was quite disappointed. I really hope to be on one some day.

[Not_Done_Living]

Originally Posted by Hero_Mike

I often believe that people who are charged with crimes, have in fact, committed them. The old "where there's smoke, there's fire" philosophy. It makes sense, too that our criminal justice system has limited resources and brings it upon themselves only to prosecute where a conviction is likely, which would imply that they do so, only when the accused is really and truly guilty.

Or unlikely to afford a defense, or easily coerced into a false confession, or convenient to a situation which needs closure.

If i committed a crime, and then got 10 of my friends to report that they saw YOU do it, even if the facts didn't line up, more then likely you would be charged and convicted. You didn't do it, but 10 eye witnesses can't be wrong now could they?


The point of view you expressed above robs people of the right to fair trail, and creates the guilty until proven otherwise mindset that sends innocent people to jail. "If he got arrested, he must be guilty, so he's guilty"

If that was the case, why even bother with the farce of a trial?

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by Hero_Mike

I often believe that people who are charged with crimes, have in fact, committed them. The old "where there's smoke, there's fire" philosophy. It makes sense, too that our criminal justice system has limited resources and brings it upon themselves only to prosecute where a conviction is likely, which would imply that they do so, only when the accused is really and truly guilty.

You're assuming that "conviction is likely" and "the defendant is likely guilty" are exactly the same thing. They may not be.

You're also assuming that the "system" knows whether or a not an accused is "really and truly guilty." That cannot possibly always be the case. They "system" is made up of humans, who make mistakes. And in most cases, no representative of the "system" was there when the crime was committed.

[Assilem Brandywine]

When I served jury duty, a woman told us that anyone over the age of 65 would be excused. The few people who were of that age opted to stay. That fact was used to guilt trip some people who were trying to weasle out of jury duty.

[Hero_Mike]

Originally Posted by AnglRdr

This is a very paranoid view. The average person doesn't even acknowledge your existence, much less plot about how to take advantage of you.

I would hate to go through life with such a jaundiced eye.

Oh, how soon we forget about Nigerian Scams, and virus-laden e-mails, and identity theft, and "solicitors" for unknown charities, and people wanting to talk to you just so they can "case" your house as a target for theft, and so on, and so on. The world is fraught with peril. One is always, *always* being told to be on their guard for such things. Some are real, some are urban legends, but the recommendation is to be skeptical because we aren't likely to encounter that "average" person. Predators are successful because they seek out easy targets. When someone has their life savings stolen by a well-meaning "bank executive" who was trying to catch other criminals, do we say "how nice that they have faith in their fellow man", or do we say "what an idiot for trusting someone so easily"?

Originally Posted by Not_Done_Living

If i committed a crime, and then got 10 of my friends to report that they saw YOU do it, even if the facts didn't line up, more then likely you would be charged and convicted. You didn't do it, but 10 eye witnesses can't be wrong now could they?

You forget that eyewitness testimony is among the least likely to be correct. And these days, everyone wants CSI-quality evidence for even the smallest of crimes.

The point of view you expressed above robs people of the right to fair trail, and creates the guilty until proven otherwise mindset that sends innocent people to jail. "If he got arrested, he must be guilty, so he's guilty"
If that was the case, why even bother with the farce of a trial?

Is there such a thing as a fair trial? What about the quality and cost of legal defense? A jury of your "peers" - when all of your "peers" are busy at work? Everyone has a personal bias - few crimes or situations don't bring up some emotional response in a person, based on what they have experienced or merely heard. I doubt I could be "impartial" in a trial where the accused has a history of being a violent bully. As long as they reminded me of that nasty kid in Grade 4, I'd have a hard time hearing the facts. This may not be "fair" but at least I'm honest about it.

Originally Posted by Lainie

You're assuming that "conviction is likely" and "the defendant is likely guilty" are exactly the same thing. They may not be.

You're also assuming that the "system" knows whether or a not an accused is "really and truly guilty." That cannot possibly always be the case. They "system" is made up of humans, who make mistakes. And in most cases, no representative of the "system" was there when the crime was committed.

I don't believe that the system "knows" if a person is or is not guilty, but rather, that only when they have strong physical evidence. I don't think that people get charged because some rogue cop has a "gut feeling". I am intrigued by the portrayal of this in the media and in fiction, where just about everyone who is brought to trial is, indeed, guilty (even if they only get charged because of a "gut feeling), and the defence is only a case of justification (or excuse) of the criminal action. Put it this way - Jean Valjean stole a loaf of bread. It's indisputable fact - he took something that was not his. Punishment now depends upon the circumstances of why the crime was committed - not merely *if* it was committed. However, for many crimes, this is not really all that important. If a person drinks, drives, and kills someone, should we really care if they were out celebrating, or drowning their sorrows? They are still responsible for their irresponsible actions. And in some cases, they should be seen as "fully" responsible and punished to the extent of the law.

That said, I feel that short of corruption or individual sadism, that the "justice system" does not go out of its way to target someone who is known to be innocent. Not anymore. The risks are too high, and the costs too severe, to make those mistakes. But that sadism does not justify the punishment meted out for guilty individuals. Sure, that addict girlfriend of a drug dealer may have been guilty of possessing cocaine, but should she really go to jail for 10 years? That's not justice - that's revenge - and it is in that "punishment" phase that gets far too little review and criticism.

[AnglRdr]

Originally Posted by Hero_Mike

Oh, how soon we forget about Nigerian Scams, and virus-laden e-mails, and identity theft, and "solicitors" for unknown charities, and people wanting to talk to you just so they can "case" your house as a target for theft, and so on, and so on.

I'll direct you to the first sentence in the post you quoted:

Skepticism, when it is warranted, is a good thing.

The world is fraught with peril.

It really isn't. In fact, it's a fairly safe place for the vast majority of us. It's one thing to pay attention and to be wise. It's a whole other to think that everybody is out to get you. On average, nobody even knows you are alive.

we aren't likely to encounter that "average" person.

Uh, actually, yes we are. We aren't likely to encounter the extraordinary person.

Predators are successful because they seek out easy targets. When someone has their life savings stolen by a well-meaning "bank executive" who was trying to catch other criminals, do we say "how nice that they have faith in their fellow man", or do we say "what an idiot for trusting someone so easily"?

We say be aware. But if you think the whole world is out to get you, that's paranoia.

[TripleAAA]

Originally Posted by lord_feldon

Unless your jurisdiction uses other types of records.

Oh, I was under the assumption that the entire US used voter records. Maybe thats just the way they do it in Mass and VA. I have yet to be called to jury duty.

[lord_feldon]

Originally Posted by TripleAAA

Oh, I was under the assumption that the entire US used voter records. Maybe thats just the way they do it in Mass and VA. I have yet to be called to jury duty.

I think Ohio allows voter records and drivers licenses. IIRC, my county just uses voter records because they found that, on the whole, people suck at keeping up to date addresses on file with the BMV.