Slashdot Mirror
Computer Geeks and Jury Duty in the US?
Stan Schwarz asks: "I just spent a day doing jury duty here in Los Angeles, and it was a colossal waste of time. I've been called for jury duty five times over the last 18 years, and I -never- get picked for a jury. I answer the five questions (name, where you live, marital status, occupation, spouse's occupation) and they throw me out. My lawyer neighbor says this is because they don't want computer people because we think logically and are not emotional. Have other slashdot readers had similar experiences with the judicial system? Or should I just develop a complex about this?"
So lawyers are rejecting exactly the fairest jurors, doing a grave injustice to justice. We should be outraged, but on the other hand...
I think lawyers should have NO say on who goes in the jury. Not only can it skew the results, but it wastes a LOT of time. The time of people like you who are called in, interviewed, and rejected (I've heard of hundreds of people being summoned for high profile cases), and the court's time for the time spent interviewing and haggling. And they complain of a backlog!
Sure, not every random person is suitable, but neither is every lawyer-edited jury. IANAL, but I suspect that the time savings from simplifying jury trials (and reducing the number of jury members while we're at it) would greatly outweigh the putative increase in the mistrial rate. Bumping up the frequency of venue changes would help.
Since you asked about my juror experience as a geek, I was called once for a trial in Quebec, but I was in a Waterloo (Ontario) co-op program at the time. I was freaked out because the initial estimate of the trial length was 6 months, and even a couple of months would have delayed my degree by a whole year. Fortunately I did not have to go because they would have had to pay hotel bills since I was from out-of-province. It seems likely that professional geeks are more mobile than nongeeks, and therefore undersummoned for juries. In my case though, I was greatly relieved.
If we were ants living on a Rubik's cube, differential geometry would be a little more confusing.
I think the key is to have open-minded jurors. And computer geeks who think they know everything (and rarely do, especially about the law) are probably not a good selection.
The law is logical if you've studied it inside and out and know all the reasons behind every little inconsistency. But if you haven't, you can't really make sense of it, so you just have to buy whatever the judge instructs you to.
Who decides that the judge is impartial?
Besides, I'm not sure I'd want to be tried by a panel of 12 unbiased emotional eunuchs.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
I read this story, and the fortune at the bottom of the page is:
Just remember: when you go to court, you are trusting your fate to twelve people that weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty!
My first time doing jury service was also in Los Angeles (downtown? Out in the Valley? -- maybe that makes a difference). This was a couple of years ago when you had to serve the full two weeks, none of this one-day and you're out stuff. After 4 days of playing CivII on my laptop in the assembly room, they asked for volunteers to go out to Van Nuys. I volunteered because it was closer to where I was living, I'm not there 20 minutes when I get called for a panel (wasn't called for a panel for 4 days downtown), they ask the std. questions -- I don't get excused, was foreman of my jury. I was clear enough about my role in the industry that I had to explain to the judge exactly what I did, and apparently that wasn't enough.
YMMV, of course -- and perhaps it was just random chance. All I know is that I missed out on 6 more days of CivII. Seriously, I actually enjoyed it -- I wasn't serving with the brightest bulbs in the in the county, and the case wasn't terribly difficult (had one guy that as soon as the door was closed said, "Ok, he's guilty - where's the forms").
Nowadays, with jury duty being 1 day/1 trial, there's really no excuse for folks not to serve. I know it's cliched and everything, but if I was on trial for something, I'd feel better knowing that there were slashdot folks on the jury, as opposed to 12 Angry Postal Workers.
Ok, maybe not.
Bah - anybody that can't get out of jury duty isn't one of my peers. There is no way the courts could get 12 of my peers in a single jury. Not a chance :)
... they don't arrest innocent people (do they?)' card. If all those fail, the 'I get to judge as I see fit, regardless of the actual laws, right??' card is guaranteed to get me sent home - but I generally never have to pull more after I throw down the 'racist' card.
That said, I suggest Juniors and Seniors in college, preferably during the off season (summer, xmas break...) They are smart(er), better read, up on current events, fair(er), and as of yet do not owe anybody anything so they do not have political burdens or obligations. Nobody is as smart as a college Junior or Senior, just ask them and they will assure you of that.
As for me, I have a bunch of cards that generally get pulled. The 'unjustly busted for speeding when I wasn't by the evil highway patrolman' card comes out early, the 'race' card comes out after that, the 'eager to be a juror because I can spot a guilty man a mile away' card after that, followed by the 'of course he is guilty
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
Given that each of the lawyer, judge, and jury have different roles, doesn't it seem a miscarriage of justice to allow the lawyers to select the jury? Lawyers cannot select the judge that hears their case, why should they be allowed to select the jury?
First, IANeitherALawyerNorAmerican.
As life is so wont to imitate art these (heavily media-laden and influential) days, I'm going to assume there's at least SOME truth in what we see in shows like "The Practice", "L.A. Law" or (oh sweet Mercy, save us) "Ally McBeal" (at least in legal procedures, if nothing else. I may live half a world away, but the culture is saturated in the media). Or even, for just a moment, "Rumpole Of The Bailey" (if anybody remembers the late and lamented Leo McKern).
Lawyers are sometimes portrayed as clever private detectives, uncovering that vital piece of evidence or small niggling fact that everybody else missed. Makes for good TV, don't it?
However, lawyers are also very frequently portrayed as amazing PR flacks, coaching the client and witnesses to present the best image possible with rehearsed statements and body cues... n'est pas?
To whom would it be more advantageous to show a carefully crafted image - someone trained in analysis and problem solving, or somebody fed a lifelong psychologically crafted stream of media memes? Which group would experience the maximum effect?
Of course, the world could never be so cynical. With businesses and lawyers in the corporate world, image is never as important as cold, hard reality, surely...
When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When the law AND the facts are against you, make sure you're photogenic... or at least know the best buyer for the rights to the story.
Because many (most?) of us regard the process as broken/corrupt and the compensation hopelessly inadequate ($5-$20 US a day plus milage? Hello? Anyone home?).
Tell you what - raise the compensation rate to the same as whatever job I work, quit treating jurors as a necessary evil to be manipulated by the defense and prosecution lawyers instead of as the basis of the US criminal justice system, and I'll bet the courts find it 10 times easier to get jury pool candidates who aren't figuring out a way not to serve.