How often are you called for jury duty? (Fortuna: employment, cost of)

[Lovehound]

Originally Posted by CALGUY

Because it would be a professional jury service, there would be no "rubber stamp" decisions.

No.

The Spanish Inquisition had no rubber stamp decisions. The Salem Witch trials had no rubber stamp decisions. Oh yeah, and the American astronauts landing on the moon was actually filmed at a Hollywood sound stage...

Originally Posted by Annie53

The more I think about it..........having a professional jury would not work.

Whether run by the government or a private enterprise.........it would be too easy to corrupt.

Yes.

The use of a lay jury of the defendant's peers legitimizes the verdict. The use of a professional jury merely extends the presence of a judge. We might as well just get rid of the jurors and base the system on judges determining guilt or innocence.

What is the difference between a professional judge and a professional jury? Not much I can see except pay scale.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by Annie53

I do not think FORCING people to serve on a jury against their will is a good idea. For instance........you are forced to serve against your will.....you are miserable or you are losing a load of money because you are missing work. The jury takes a vote.....you change your vote to match the majority.........just so you can get the hell out of there. It may not be the right thing to do.....but I will bet it happens all the time.

I don't think it does. By the time they pick the alternate jurors, they have a pretty good idea of who doesn't want to be there and who might sabotage the process. They screen everyone as carefully as they can and ask a lot of questions to weed out any biases, indifference, etc, etc. And you know, once you're actually ON the jury, it's fairly interesting and you have a camaraderie with your fellow jurors. You learn a lot about the law. The whole thing is fascinating. Everybody should get a chance to serve, even if it's just for a day on a case that later gets plea bargained.

Actually serving on the jury is nothing like waiting around in that reception room for hours (or days).

[Lovehound]

That's it. Once on the jury it's (presumably) interesting. I'd be willing to serve if it wasn't always me sitting in the waiting room, then vor dire and then sitting, and over and over and over. If I got to sit on a jury I might feel differently.

I'll be gone from CA before the new year. If I have a summons before then I can postpone it until at least the new year. I'm safely beyond the clutches of the jury duty summoners.

[Senor Boogie Woogie]

Why not hire unemployed people for jury duty? How much does it pay?

[killer2021]

yea they should really pay AT LEAST minimum wage. That way I wouldn't really mind going. Personally I am the best person out there to be judging the fate of others. If anyone goes on trial, trust me, you would want me in the jury.

[Lovehound]

You folks do understand that the government cannot afford to pay jurors more than they are paid now, don't you? Our legal system is already frightfully expensive. If you paid jurors minimum wage just where would the money come from? Higher taxes? (Does that ring any bells?)

[revelated]

Originally Posted by Lovehound

You folks do understand that the government cannot afford to pay jurors more than they are paid now, don't you? Our legal system is already frightfully expensive. If you paid jurors minimum wage just where would the money come from? Higher taxes? (Does that ring any bells?)

Then there needs to be guidelines that those who are employed MUST be paid at least half wage while they're attending jury duty, those who are unemployed MUST be paid minimum wage, and the way you pay for that is by cutting the fat off the process. No more mass waiting rooms where they're paying mileage and public transportation tickets for hundreds of people. Wait until a trial is imminent, then pick 12 people definitively and pay them ONLY. It's not hard.

[Lovehound]

Originally Posted by revelated

Then there needs to be guidelines that those who are employed MUST be paid at least half wage while they're attending jury duty, those who are unemployed MUST be paid minimum wage, and the way you pay for that is by cutting the fat off the process. No more mass waiting rooms where they're paying mileage and public transportation tickets for hundreds of people. Wait until a trial is imminent, then pick 12 people definitively and pay them ONLY. It's not hard.

There is definitely a disconnect between your reasoning and mine. The court system cannot afford to pay what you described above. You have heard about closing the courts one day a month (or something like that) to keep costs down. Paying jurors more is not going to fly.

And that's typically 14 jurors because they need a couple alternates in case one of the jurors gets sick or otherwise disqualified.

[revelated]

Originally Posted by Lovehound

The court system cannot afford to pay what you described above. Paying jurors more is not going to fly.

That statement is not logical. Right now we take a group of potential jurors and sit them in a room to wait all day long for their potential selection for a jury and backup. So let's do some math. Assuming 100 potentials selected (I've seen it):

• $15/day for them = $1500
• Transit reimbursement @ $4 per head = $400
• Mileage for travel to the waiting room per person = $.35/mile. Assuming an average travel of 15 miles per person = $525

That's nearly $2500 per trial just to have people wait around for the trial and does not include the reimbursement for those actually selected. Figure about $2200 of that is wasted on people never selected for the jury. My suggestion is to do away with that fat entirely and leverage that money on people who actually serve, while minimizing the amount of instances that money is spent.

If you figure a jury selection takes place once every business day, that's over half a million dollars given to people to sit in a room and watch TV. And you don't think that's wasteful? Why not parlay that money to selecting the 12 people who are definitely going to serve - plus two backups - and paying them a fair wage? Seems more logical than throwing money at people who really don't want to be sitting there wasting time anyway.

[Lovehound]

You're forgetting something else, the defendant's right to object to specific jurors, in what they call vor dire. That alone means there'll be far more than 14 jurors per trial waiting to see if they are selected.