1a. Re: Bob Dancer's Jury selection date
Date: Wed Jul 25, 2007 5:59 pm ((PDT))the question is was it worth it . My answer is Yes.
I did my civic duty and we reached a verdict in a multi million
dollar lawsuit against a governmental beauracracy. I learned a ton
about our judicial system and how it operates.So Bob I suggest you do your civic duty and go to the selection Be
truthfull during the selection process. And if you are chosen serve
proudly.People who will lie or do nearly anything to "get out of it" are not
only commiting a crime, contempt of court, but demonstrating what is
wrong with United States citizens of this era.
This is not always true, although I will generally agree. There is an underlying presumption that serving on the jury will help achieve justice. If one believes that the judicial system is one that determines justice, serve on a jury when asked. If you believe, as my own experience with the courts supports, that the judicial system is based on a court of law, not a court of justice, and that some of the laws don't make sense, you will not find jury duty so satisfying.
Likewise, if you believe that many of your "peers" who will serve on the jury can't set their personal likes, dislikes, and prejudices aside to make rational decisions, you will not find jury duty to be satisfying.
When the jury is instructed on points of law, sometimes the ability to do what's right is taken away from the jury. I would find the requirement to serve on such a jury personally insulting to my own values of right and wrong.
I understand this is the way it is -- but as long as the law can provide loopholes for criminals and juries can make "judgements" in civil cases that may or may not reflect "correct" judgements, I will do what I legally can to avoid such service.
I've been in the pool a couple of times, but never called for possible selection; if called, I would never lie, but would explain that I have a personal bias against the system in which they are asking me to participate, for the reasons I've explained -- and if they still want me (they might), I'll do what is expected of me, of course, and will do the best I can.
As an example, medical professional liability cases that are closed have been reviewed by expert medical panels, and have been found to find "malpractice" in half the cases that did not, in the experts' opinions, constitute substandard practice, and NOT to find "malpractice" in half the cases where the experts felt that there WAS substandard practice. In other words, flipping a coin would be equally effective in making appropriate awards, and would save the 1/3 of the payments that go to the plaintiff's attorney and the $300 an hour paid to the defense attorney in such cases.
I am ordinarily very patriotic and supportive of civic participation, but I don't find the court system to be consistent with justice.
I think that a trained panel of intelligent and educated panelists would have a better understanding and acceptance of "the system", and would be able to make more consistent and "fair" judgements than a jury of randomly selected registered voters.
I also understand fully that the law does not permit this "system" except by mutual agreement of both parties in civil matters.
--BG
···
==============