Thanks for the thoughts. You guys are right...I ultimately got what I was looking for; went to jury duty, don't have to serve on a case, got my credit, and I won't be back for three years. With the judge, I think it was shock - I didn't expect her to get into a tizzy about it. It felt strange.
knapplc wrote:I have a job, it would be extremely inconvenient to me to be out of my job for three weeks, my cases would pile up, and much of my work would not be done by others. My wife would have a similar problem - very little of what she does could be done by another worker, and it would pile up.
How are your responsibilities as a student more important than my responsibilities at my job, or my wife's at hers, or the next person at theirs?
You would get paid for jury service, I wouldn't. You also can't get fired from your job for serving on the jury, while I can fail out of school
Trust me it could be much worse. imagine if you were called for a federal jury which pulls jurors from all over the state, so some people who literally live hours from court and have to go to jury duty everyday for weeks.
"I do not think baseball of today is any better than it was 30 years ago... I still think Radbourne is the greatest of the pitchers." John Sullivan 1914-Old athletes never change.
Fantasy GM wrote:You would get paid for jury service, I wouldn't. You also can't get fired from your job for serving on the jury, while I can fail out of school
I'd make more money picking up cans on the side of the highway than I would serving as a juror.
knapplc wrote:I have a job, it would be extremely inconvenient to me to be out of my job for three weeks, my cases would pile up, and much of my work would not be done by others. My wife would have a similar problem - very little of what she does could be done by another worker, and it would pile up.
How are your responsibilities as a student more important than my responsibilities at my job, or my wife's at hers, or the next person at theirs?
You would get paid for jury service, I wouldn't. You also can't get fired from your job for serving on the jury, while I can fail out of school
You'll understand better the ramifications of jury duty when you get out in the workforce. Let's just say that I've been where you are, and I am where I am, and I have zero sympathy for you.
As for the pay, Met said it well when he said I could pick up more money collecting cans. I make a lower wage than I should at my job, but it's still way more than jury duty. And my monthly and quarterly goals wouldn't change if I were in jury duty, yet my work wouldn't be getting done. And my annual performance review would reflect that, which would affect my income, and could affect my position itself. There are more things to consider while in the workforce than in school. You've got it easy. Stop complaining.
Yeah, sounds like she was quite unprofessional to me. But one thing to consider is that practically everyone tries to get out of serving, so I'm sure it gets old for judges to hear the string of reasons all day (not making an excuse for her, but I can imagine how frustrating it must be). Most people simply can't vanish off the Earth for 3 weeks. Being a student, a normal person with a job, or even a homemaker doesn't mean things are different and one group as a whole would suffer less consequences than the other groups. The vast majority of people (!) simply cannot vanish for 3 weeks, period.
What I don't understand is why don't the courts allow people to volunteer for jury duty? I know quite a few people (granted, most are retired) who wouldn't mind serving every so often. One of my neighbors (a housewife who doesn't work, she's maybe 25 years old) recently served and she thought it was really cool to be on a jury, listen to the lawyers make their case, and then deliberate with the other jurors to decide who proved what. She said she'd serve regularly if they'd let her because she found it so interesting. Seems allowing volunteers would at least help as far as getting jurors and messing up fewer lives in the process. Heck, they could even go the route of having "professional" jurors (I'd guess it would only take a couple hundred people per city on average) and quit calling people for jury duty completely. Having a panel of experienced jurors might actually be a good thing in a courtroom.
Personally I always wind up getting tossed due to my stance on things. Been tossed for fully supporting the death penalty (defense counsel used a challenge to remove me) and I've been tossed for disagreeing with the law (funny part is that the law has now been changed to reflect exactly what my stance is - go figure ).
Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison wrote: What I don't understand is why don't the courts allow people to volunteer for jury duty? I know quite a few people (granted, most are retired) who wouldn't mind serving every so often. One of my neighbors (a housewife who doesn't work, she's maybe 25 years old) recently served and she thought it was really cool to be on a jury, listen to the lawyers make their case, and then deliberate with the other jurors to decide who proved what. She said she'd serve regularly if they'd let her because she found it so interesting. Seems allowing volunteers would at least help as far as getting jurors and messing up fewer lives in the process. Heck, they could even go the route of having "professional" jurors (I'd guess it would only take a couple hundred people per city on average) and quit calling people for jury duty completely. Having a panel of experienced jurors might actually be a good thing in a courtroom.
Because you are supposed to be judged by your peers, and to have someone as a pro-juror they wouldn't really be a peer since that is their job.
yeah i've heard of judges going off on people like this. a very similar story happened to my sister and she had to serve. the judge was very mean to her. i guess they want to make a point to people who they think don't take this jury duty thing seriously. on one hand i do understand judges who try to make people understand this is a serious business and is our duty to serve. but yeah, they should'nt go all crazy on the people.
Madison wrote:Yeah, sounds like she was quite unprofessional to me. But one thing to consider is that practically everyone tries to get out of serving, so I'm sure it gets old for judges to hear the string of reasons all day (not making an excuse for her, but I can imagine how frustrating it must be). Most people simply can't vanish off the Earth for 3 weeks. Being a student, a normal person with a job, or even a homemaker doesn't mean things are different and one group as a whole would suffer less consequences than the other groups. The vast majority of people (!) simply cannot vanish for 3 weeks, period.
What I don't understand is why don't the courts allow people to volunteer for jury duty? I know quite a few people (granted, most are retired) who wouldn't mind serving every so often. One of my neighbors (a housewife who doesn't work, she's maybe 25 years old) recently served and she thought it was really cool to be on a jury, listen to the lawyers make their case, and then deliberate with the other jurors to decide who proved what. She said she'd serve regularly if they'd let her because she found it so interesting. Seems allowing volunteers would at least help as far as getting jurors and messing up fewer lives in the process. Heck, they could even go the route of having "professional" jurors (I'd guess it would only take a couple hundred people per city on average) and quit calling people for jury duty completely. Having a panel of experienced jurors might actually be a good thing in a courtroom.
Personally I always wind up getting tossed due to my stance on things. Been tossed for fully supporting the death penalty (defense counsel used a challenge to remove me) and I've been tossed for disagreeing with the law (funny part is that the law has now been changed to reflect exactly what my stance is - go figure ).
Professional jurors are usually called judges. There are numerous instances in civil trials where a case is heard by a judge sitting without a jury and they decide issues of both fact and law. However, in the criminal system, one is entitled to a jury trial. I think there'd be a big problem with allowing people to volunteer for service (i.e. people could lie their way onto juries that they know are going to be picked that particular day). Although most people probably wouldn't abuse the system, there would certainly be those that would which would entirely defeat the purpose of a jury trial.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by mweir145 » Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:36 pm 
).
