Discussions of important civic duties almost always include two — voting and jury duty.
While a statistical blip might occur from time to time, the voting record of Americans in the past several decades pretty much stinks — from local races to those of national significance.
I think most people believe jury duty fares no better. Many localities used to pull potential jurors from registered-voter rolls. Anecdotal evidence suggests that it caused some people to not register, a kind of civic engagement double whammy. Rolls of potential jurors now get pulled from multiple sources such as registered voters, driver’s license data and even state income tax filings.
Ducking jury duty seems odd.
Among all the constitutional rights, the right to a trial by a jury of your peers sits among the most revered. Paula Hannaford-Agor, the director of the Center for Jury Studies at the National Center for State Courts, in Williamsburg, Va., attests to that and to the penchant for ducking jury duty.
“You have almost this bipolar reaction,” she said about people who try to dodge jury duty.
Research shows that approximately 75 percent of the public finds trial by jury the most important aspect of the system, she said. But when called to duty that same public says, “It is — but not this week,” she said.
However, reason for optimism exists because Hannaford-Agor said research shows:
• some 30 percent of the U.S. population today did jury duty. And the vast majority has a very good experience and believes the experience makes them better citizens.
• most jurisdictions now do a better job of managing the jury system and dealing with key issues that make people shy from it such as convenience and compensation.
But lack of civic engagement can still lead to a lack of potential jurors.
I have learned that if you cannot manage yourself, someone else will manage you and more often than not, you will not like it.
So the news comes from Colorado and Vermont that inadequate jury pools led court administrators to send officers of the court out to round up potential jurors.
People could not manage themselves with regard to an important civic obligation. Someone decided to manage them, and nobody seems to like it.
The Feb. 4 article in The National Law Journal reported that officers went to malls and grocery stores, where they would issue a summons for jury duty, grab up shoppers and take them to court. In those states, the law allows that process, and Hannaford-Agor said the practice has been around for centuries.
Some lawyers think it stinks and that those prospective jurors caught in the roundup vent their frustration on the system and maybe even defendants.
Hannaford-Agor said juror roundups rarely happen, and it usually reflects poorly managed jurisdictions where the public knows nothing happens when they ignore the call to serve. As for the value of a “roundup,” she puts it this way: “It’s a horrible experience for a citizen. You might as well just run them over with a truck.”
Are juror roundups a good idea or fraught with problems? When we cannot manage ourselves “civically,” should someone else manage us?
Resources:
For people who don't vote because they don't think their vote is counted or makes a diffference, you make a great point about participation. I'm participating as much as I personally can; I don't think that a "jury draft" will motivate my generation, but it might move the ball a bit farther.
Interesting idea. What if we made 18-year-olds register for the "jury draft" just like we do for the military? Only here, the time commitment would be for 50 years.
Hello: That you are participating as much as you can is the important thing. That's great. And "jury draft" was an excellent way to put the "summons" tactic in perspective. Maybe we can start a movement to get folks to volunteer for jury duty! Mac
Post new comment