Intellectual conceit aside, there are certain things that are screwed up in this nation that greater minds than mine have tried to fix. Its the political equivalent of trying to build a better mousetrap. Us Armchair Politicians can sit in our quiet houses and imagine vast and sweeping reforms that will fix these problems. By understanding, of course, that this blog is not going to change the world, I'd still like to take a whack at these things and see if this vast cloud of intellectual giants that is the blogosphere can determine a solution. So, here are my ideas, and then I want you all to add your own or tell me I'm an idiot. Let's try to keep this from becoming the usual blue state/red state fiasco.
My co-worker just got back from jury duty - a thankless task for which she was paid a whopping $15 - minus $2.50 for a sandwich. I have never been able to serve on jury duty for this reason - who can afford to work for $15 a day? Let's say the average jury trial is one week. And let's say, after taxes, you earn $100 a day. That's $500 pay, for which you get reimbursed $75. Who is going to make up $425 in your salary for that month? For most everyone this would be a hardship. For some, it would be downright disastrous. For others, it would just be annoying.
Like the military reserves, your company has to let you serve on jury duty, but there is no guarantee of missed pay during this time. So, for most people, jury duty means lost wages. These lost wages are entirely the burden of the jurist to repay. Their company does not reimburse them. The government does not reimburse them. And the bills that need to be paid, still need to be paid - and jury duty is not an excuse.
Now, you know the economics of this situation. But what is the solution? Should jurists be paid more? How much more? Who should pay them? Where should this money come from? Should the burden fall to a jurists' company? What if the jurist is self employed? Should jurist be given exemptions from bill paying for one month? Who is going to reimburse the companies that are owed money?
Part of the problem I see is that the system is designed to work against jurists. They are required to appear. They are required to serve. They are not offered just compensation. They can be ordered to serve when it is the most inconvenient time for them. They are under the jurisdiction of the courts while they serve (they can be sequestered, etc...) Who, in their right mind, would want to be a jurist?
I understand the honor of serving. I understand the duty that is fulfilled by serving. I am an American and I abhor the concept of full-time jurists who clock in and out for a paycheck. But I also know that I have yet to be able to afford to be a jurist and I don't forsee that situation changing anytime soon.
I have a simple, albeit unlikely, solution to the whole problem - move trials to the night time. Make all jury trials run from 5pm to Midnight. (I can hear my sister screaming now, "What? Are you insane?") Think about it? Jurists can work during the day - then come be on a jury at night. They still have time to go home and rest before getting up to go to work the next day. Financial problems are removed (they may have to leave work early... but that's a lot better than not being there at all). And you open up the jury pool to millions more Americans who are now willing and eager to do their civic duty for the United States.
So, I'm curious to see what other people think. What would your solution be to the problem of Jury Duty?
1 comment:
I work as an independent programmer. Sometimes I'm really busy with work, and other times I'm not doing anything. During jury selection, when listening to people explain to the judge that they can't serve on a jury because they need to work, I remember thinking that people ought to be allowed to volunteer dates to the county as to when they might be available for jury duty - "I can serve on jury duty between July 1 and July 15," for example. The only problem I can think of (though I don't claim to have deeply studied the issue) would be something like people volunteering for jury duty when their friend's trial is scheduled to begin.
Maybe retirees who volunteered could be allowed to serve more often than others.
Military tribunals in Guantanamo? No jury needed! Oops, I guess that's too red-state/blue-state ;>
Here in San Mateo County, California, I don't think anyone gets in trouble if they don't show up.
Post a Comment