Jerry Duty
0
So I just got back from a Jury summons, and luckily, I was not selected. What I was thinking, what do you people think of the whole process, and what you think of your experience, if you have any?
I ask because Jury duty tends to have an infamous reputation in itself, and to be honest, other than how boring the whole experience is, I found that it wasn't such a bad thing. Sure, it may be an annoyance, but it certainly isn't bad.
I ask because Jury duty tends to have an infamous reputation in itself, and to be honest, other than how boring the whole experience is, I found that it wasn't such a bad thing. Sure, it may be an annoyance, but it certainly isn't bad.
0
I find it funny that a process that is meant to be fair and equal must have the pool of people hand selected by the defendant and prosecution. It sucks that payed per hour workers get so shafted by a summons too.
0
Tegumi
"im always cute"
Future note to move thread
@OP: Was titling this thread "Jerry Duty" on purpose?
@OP: Was titling this thread "Jerry Duty" on purpose?
0
Athio wrote...
I find it funny that a process that is meant to be fair and equal must have the pool of people hand selected by the defendant and prosecution. It sucks that payed per hour workers get so shafted by a summons too.To be fair, the entire idea of having the jury being picked by both the defense and the prosecutors is to help prevent jury bias. If it was entirely random, then that would potentially increase the chances of and unfair trial. Which could mean (albeit theoretically) that a mistrial come be declared/argued, thus forcing the legal matter to continue in (possibly) numerous "follow up" cases, costing the taxpayers more money for what may have well been a simple issue.
As to the "payed per hour workers", I think (I don't have much information on this particular subject, so it may as well be considered base-less speculation) that there are plans in effect in certain cases. Honestly, all I can really draw from for this would be maternity issues. In other words; if you work by the hour and you only seem to be able to make a livable wage, it would seem plausible that you can be excused from jury duty in order to ensure survival. If I am wrong on this assessment, please tell me. This has me curious.
0
Tegumi wrote...
Future note to move thread@OP: Was titling this thread "Jerry Duty" on purpose?
My spell check is fucking me up.
Ninja4Hire wrote...
Athio wrote...
I find it funny that a process that is meant to be fair and equal must have the pool of people hand selected by the defendant and prosecution. It sucks that payed per hour workers get so shafted by a summons too.To be fair, the entire idea of having the jury being picked by both the defense and the prosecutors is to help prevent jury bias. If it was entirely random, then that would potentially increase the chances of and unfair trial. Which could mean (albeit theoretically) that a mistrial come be declared/argued, thus forcing the legal matter to continue in (possibly) numerous "follow up" cases, costing the taxpayers more money for what may have well been a simple issue.
As to the "payed per hour workers", I think (I don't have much information on this particular subject, so it may as well be considered base-less speculation) that there are plans in effect in certain cases. Honestly, all I can really draw from for this would be maternity issues. In other words; if you work by the hour and you only seem to be able to make a livable wage, it would seem plausible that you can be excused from jury duty in order to ensure survival. If I am wrong on this assessment, please tell me. This has me curious.
Nah, your right. When they were making the selections, the first thing they kept on asking was if this was going to bring up "great hardship," and if jury duty will get in the way of your personal life. Quite a few people were excused because of their business situations.