Kia Franklin
Jury Duty: Awful or Awe-inspiring?
I vote for awe-inspiring. But according to a recent study by the National Center for State Courts, less than half of those who are summoned for jury duty bother to show up in court.
Are you shocked and dismayed? Not so much? Didn't think so. But given what jurors who've performed this public service have to say after they've experienced it firsthand, perhaps you should be.
That's why the Documentary Group is putting together a film for prospective jurors about citizens' positive experiences serving on a jury. They are interviewing interested participants in New York City this week. So if interested in being filmed or if you have questions about the project, you should email Sandra I. McDaniel, Sandra(dot)I(dot)McDaniel(dot)-ND(at)abc(dot)com, right away. Sandra writes:
The jury box has been called a palladium of justice and the bulwark of liberty.Lofty descriptions indeed. But if you felt that your jury duty experience was something akin to that—The Documentary Group wants to hear from you.
We are producing a series of educational films for prospective jurors and would like to hear from those that have had recent, fulfilling experiences as jurors and want to share some positive observations with those looking down the barrel of…jury duty, that much maligned but vital civic service. Do you feel like it was a civic duty to be a juror? Did you learn more about our legal system? Do you want to tell others why you think it is a valuable thing to do even though, yes-- it is often inconvenient and yes, often time-consuming?
We would like to film interested participants this week at our offices in New York City. You don't have to bring anything except your desire to talk about how taking part in the justice system was an important event for you. These segments are designed to be streamed on the Internet, shown in courtrooms, or to be quite literally carried into jury duty on personal hand-held media players such as iPods in the near future. The trial you served on could have been civil or criminal, state or federal.You don't need to be a legal expert—you just need to have served.
In theory, Americans tend to really value the jury system (so argues this ABA study on juries and jury duty experiences). And after actually going through jury duty, Americans generally find that it was a good experience. But there's something about getting that card in the mail that for many people produces a sense of dread about dropping everything and showing up in court.
So, what gives? On NPR, Margaret Adler interviews Cornell Law Professor Valerie Hans (mp3), who says the following about jury duty angst:
Old historical documents... talk about Kings issuing proclamations insiting on jury service... You get the sense that very early on, it was a little hard to get people to... serve on the jury. And, there certainly are lots of jokes about how to get out of jury duty. But there's a reality--a lot of people are a bit apprehensive about it and there's in fact some research on why people feel ill at ease, and apprehensive and concerned about jury duty and think about ways that they get off... Mostly, they fear disruption, and perhaps also close encounters with people who are really different from you, and close encounters with the legal system...
But research shows that service on jury duty actually yields positive outcomes for participants, like increased civic participation among former jurors and a willingness to serve again if requested. Those who have been called to service view the experience even more positively than those who have not. Hans explains:
The research shows once you actually serve on the jury you look back and say, 'You know it wasn't as disruptive as I thought it was going to be...' People who haven't been very engaged with the community like people who vote infrequently for example, after jury service tend to become more likely voters... There's a way in which the experience of sitting down with fellow citizens and deciding an important issue seems to engage people and bind them to their community.
What do you think? Have you ever served on jury duty? Ducked out of it? If you are in the New York City area, tell Sandra and the folks at The Documentary Group about it. Who knows, maybe this could be your big break!
(Image Credit: BBC)
Kia Franklin: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 12:32 PM, Jun 10, 2008 in Civil Justice
Permalink | Email to Friend | Comments (5)
Comments
Are the people who serve on Juries are different from those who duck out? Would the evaders be more favorably inclined toward defendants, more believing in the truth of police testimony? Is there any data about the differences?
Obviously, those whose jobs pay them for their Jury time, retired people and the unemployed are less likely to suffer financially from Jury duty. Until recently Jury duty in NY was long drawn out and boring. Now it's short, drawn out and boring.
Posted by: Daniel Millstone | June 10, 2008 05:22 PM
Jury duty is a pretty cool civic duty, in theory: in reality, I'd be interested to know just how many hourly workers get paid for doing it. For some people, the loss of a few days pay can mean the difference between eating or not eating that week (true story, I couldn't by groceries once when I was really scraping by and I got called, and I don't even have kids to feed) if the duty is so great and awe-inspiring, why doesn't the government at least pay the people who do it minimum wage? some people are really, truly, struggling, and we don't always get deferrals.
Posted by: Zoe Plerhoples | June 16, 2008 04:19 PM
These are great comments. Thanks for pointing out the financial realities people have to face when deciding whether they can answer the call for jury duty. I'm sure this probably does explain why some people, practically, choose to do everything they can to get out of duty (or choose to skip out on it, which is not a wise move because it's illegal).
To my knowledge, people do get paid for jury duty--something like $40/day in New York. Of course, if you're there for 8 hours or more per day then this doesn't match the state minimum wage (7.15), and this can be a real problem for people. Getting paid less to serve on a jury is a sacrifice that those who can afford it should be glad to make, since it helps guarantee a treasured constitutional right.
However, those who are truly struggling shouldn't have to choose between jury duty and eating. Just as a quality education is thought to be one of our nation's highest values, yet you see gross disparities in school funding plans, sometimes the state/fed'l govt just doesn't put the money where its mouth is. But that's not to say jury duty isn't a great opportunity and a great societal value. Instead, in my opinion, it's to say that this is yet another example of an inequity that deserves proper attention and correction.
More info on jury duty: http://www1.nysd.uscourts.gov/jury_faq.php
Posted by: Kia | June 17, 2008 10:22 AM
I have just received my 3rd summons for jury duty. The first two were waiting in the jury room for a day and being told we could leave at noon. Both times I felt proud to be there. Doing my civic duty to maintain a just environment. To keep my perception of social order meaning somthing. I didn't care about what I was paid because my employer paid the bill it was only one day no problem.
Now I am over 50 earning about $150 a day. I am living week to week on the pay I receive. Paying the mortage, electricty, phone bill, cable bill, groceries, all ads up. The Guide to Juror Service says "Full time employed jurors are paid their regular wages by the employer for the first 5 days or part thereof of jury duty service. Beginning on the sixth day of juror service, all jurors are paid $50.00 per day by the state, regardless of their employment status." This is completely unexceptable. For a nation of hard working honest people to accept this pay as even comming close to being sufficient in compensating such an important aspect of our American way of life. This is a manditory obligation at the root of all we beleive in for a person to be judged by a jury of his or her peers. If a trial takes longer that 5 days it must be an important case with a lot of evidence and witnesses to take in. For that I will be paid 1/3 of my normal pay. I would loose my home if the case took more than 2 weeks to complete. We, Jurors, truly have little value to the court system. I see this as inviting evil to step in. Juror bribes must be common place in these cases. I fear americans have lost the true meaning of fair play. Perhaps the pay of the Judge should be the same as the jurors in all "Trial by Jury Cases". They are releived of making the final decision on the case by 12 men and women pulled from their normal jobs to do it for them. I strongly feel that as Americans we need to take a stand on this issue. Either file a class action law suit against the jugicial system to rectify this compensation issue or send a bill through the congress and senate that is more suited to the honor of serving as a juror.
On a side note, it is interesting that Judges in Connecticut are exempt from serving as jurors. It isn't a conflict of interests for a judge to be a peer, is it? Doctors are not even exempt from serving as jurors. Never mind the pay reducion, who is saving lives while they are busy serving as juror. I don't think anyone would die if a judge had to miss work for the length of a trial. If the argument is that they can't schedule court cases with out a judge, then I say that logic applys to every key position of every company and business in the country. If we can do it so can they!
I do feel Doctors need to be made exempt from serving. They are far more important in their daily jobs then any of the rest of us. I'm sure they would trust the rest of us to carry this burden without them.
Posted by: Ann Christiana | January 9, 2009 08:11 PM
However, those who are truly struggling shouldn't have to choose between jury duty and eating.
---------------------
The jury system is clearly inequitable. And despite the lofty arguments about civic duty, the fact is
serving can be a costly experience for those whose companies don't cover the full costs of the days lost, or who (especially) are self-employed. There's also a good deal of self-rightious hypocrisy on the part of courts systems and government bodies whose workers receive full pay while they serve - at tax payer expense. In other words, government will ensure that its own employees will be fully compensated for jury service using taxpayer funds, but it will refuse to fairly compensate ordinary citizens - citizens who pay those government wages - for the same service.
I realize the focus here is on New York. I'm from Seattle, and jury service in Washington state pays $10 a day - the amount that was being paid in 1959. In 2000, a Washington state court commission argued that this pitiful pay was shameful - yet a decade later nothing has changed.
Court systems and government in general need to focus less on citizen responsibility, and more on their responsibility.
Posted by: James | February 4, 2009 10:10 PM