Recently, in Corsicana, a District Judge commented on how
not enough people were showing up for their jury summons. A solution that he is
proposing is to send a sheriff’s deputy to the homes of these people and picking
them up to come to jury duty or to pick them up and take them to jail. We all
know that jury duty is a mandatory thing, and I always believed that not
responding to a summons was a big offense. As that is very well the case,
apparently not many places care to enforce the issue, however in the case of
Corsicana a trial had to be cancelled because not enough people showed up. I
try to place myself in the shoes of some of these people who don’t show up for
this legal obligation. Lack of transportation? Lack of childcare (which in most
cases will allow you to be exempt)? It seems that, ultimately, these people
just don’t care enough. Why is it that some people just don’t understand the
definition and importance of civic duty? I completely agree with this District
Judge’s attempt to fix the problem. Now some people might suggest that this is
a waste of our tax payer’s money to have the local law enforcement drive to
individual houses and pick these people up. However, there is a big thing that
people should remember; making an example of those that don’t abide by the law.
It might take a week of hard work to accomplish the task, but say in that week
104 are arrested and brought to jail on the charges. The local newspaper writes
an article, word gets around, and people begin to take the summons seriously.
Before you know it the problem will have taken care of itself. The thing is
that if being a juror isn’t an important part of the justice system then would
it really still be in place? Keeping in mind that, yes sometimes it takes a
while for changes to happen, I think that something would definitely change if
it could. The thing is that I haven’t heard a recommendation for an amendment of
some kind to jury duty. There just used to be so much more respect for the
system.
3 comments:
Hi Amanda: I've chosen your topic for our Stage 6 critique. The version on my site is slightly more formal, but here's the gist:
I think your's is an interesting article concerning the jury-skipping scam.
I believe the District Judge's avant-garde proceeding to load butts in seats in respects to juries and subsequently, the effective flow of the legislative process is interesting and, probably, very effective.
Your article is certain in its stand that jury duty is important, necessary, and should be taken seriously. The issue is clearly defined and the frustration in regards to the importance of the issue and the disregard to which you perceive it being ill-attended is palpable.
The article is succinct and easy to read. You focus on one point--the honor and duty of the call to jury--and proceed from there. Your critique has only one source: the article, but it is plenty-nuff to make your point.
Your imply a certain frustration for persons who wish to slip out of their civic responsibility. And further, that those persons exhibit a particular lack of respect for the rule of law.
I agree with your take on the subject. I find your remarks and opinion to be well-rounded and responsible...patriotic even. (After stewing on the issue a few days, I believe it [jury duty service] is quite likely MORE affective to change than voting.)
I admire the tack the District Judge is taking, too. In sum, your article convincingly highlights and supports an innovative attempt at solving a pervading 'illness' rather than medicating a symptom.
I think you've written a really nice (and important) article!
Hi Amanda! I think that your commentary, “Getting Arrested for Skipping Jury Duty” brings up something we often don’t think about: our own civic duty! In clear, concise language, you describe how one district judge in Texas recently proposed that jury duty ought to be enforced by deputies making house calls to the summoned and either bringing them to court or bringing them to jail! I think you do a great job of examining both the pros and cons of this proposal: on the one hand, it might “whip” the population into shape by making an example of people. However, you also note that on the other hand it might be seen a waste of tax payer’s dollars. You clearly address how the issue could be perceived in two totally different ways.
I like how you then went on to give your own opinion, specifically that sending law officers to people’s houses to enforce jury duty is a good idea. “It might take a week of hard work to accomplish the task” but hopefully the precedent that jury duty is an important obligation would quickly be reestablished. You also take care to address the opposing viewpoint, that change can be slow. I think it’s great that you takes a clear stance on the issue and make your opinion known. Personally, I think that a tax break might be a better incentive, but of course, our hope is that people fulfill their civic duty without needing any incentive, negative or positive.
I fully agree with your statement, that “there used to be so much more respect for the system.” More and more, jury duty is brushed off as unimportant, when in fact it is incredibly essential to our judicial system. We often forget that our Bill of Rights mandates that we have the right to a “trial by jury” and to an “impartial jury in the state and district where the crime was committed.” People fought and died for these rights! It’s right up there with our civic obligation to vote! I think your commentary examines an important, often overlooked issue.
That would definitely solve any transportation issues. It’s a great proposal to send a sheriff’s deputy to the homes of people who have jury summons, if they’re unable to drive there. However, I’m unsure if the arrest of someone who refuses is a good solution.
Maybe a better approach would be to educate people why it’s important, and leave the decision of attending jury summons to them. Education for the public is vital. The public may not be as informed as they should be of how important it is to act on jury summons, which is a valid reason to promote the education of the public on the importance of jury duty. Tax dollars would be better spent educating the public why jury summons are important to the judicial system, than driving those who refuse to fulfill their jury summons to jail.
A good example for what I’m suggesting would be voting; no one is required to vote, even though it’s important. If people were required to vote, for example, against their will the outcome would not be advantageous for the community or the person voting. Similarly, those who have jury summons may resent their obligation and make an intentionally poor choice, ultimately doing more harm than good.
Although I disagree, the article makes a good argument, and I believe highly credible. It’s important for people to act on jury summons because it’s their civic obligation. The suggestion that “local law enforcement drive to individual houses and pick these people up” because of transportation issues, in my opinion, isn’t a waste of taxpayer’s money. However, I disagree with the method proposed by the District Judge in Corsicana on how to increase the attendance of those with jury summons.
Post a Comment