The debate "You shouldn't have to do jury duty if you don't want to" was started by
January 28, 2016, 11:01 am.
10 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 14 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
danielle posted 11 arguments to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 5 arguments, MrShine posted 1 argument, Alex posted 3 arguments, omactivate posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 4 arguments to the disagreers part.
danielle, MegaB1tch33, wmd, DubZero3 and 6 visitors agree.
historybuff, rob5998, Alex, ReadyToBegin, MrShine, PsychDave, omactivate, llemponen and 6 visitors disagree.
. When my dad did it he had to first fill out loads of forms about his work and how much money he would lose etc and they basically paid him his wage plus travel expenses. it was a little less than what he had earned.
I completely understand what you guys Re saying. I guess I'm just one for if you really don't want to do something you shouldn't have to. again when my dad did it, it was a massive inconvenience. he is a.manager at a holiday park and when he was called to do it, it was February. and February is when the park is being re-set up etc. so for his department it was really hard to get it all ready. the other two managers did it in the end, but it was a pain!!
$50 per day after 10 days sitting on the jury, plus travel expenses if necessary.
by getting paid I mean the company you work for paying you for a days work. or does it depend on the job one has?
a jury could be easily fixed as Dave pointed out. I don't want to do it, but if I got called I would focus during the trail. I would actually maybe enjoy sitting in a trail, if it's on a cool, interesting subject, like theft, or homicide. if the trail is for something boring, like tax fraud, that would not be fun. the part I would not want to do is the days before the trail where they ask you questions and stuff.
and do you really get no pay if your on jury duty? I thought you got paid.
The problem is that juries are not immune to selection bias. If everyone could opt in or out of jury, it would influence the results.
I will illustrate with an extreme example. Imagine the KKK encouraged their members to enroll for jury duty. That would increase the odds of them being selected compared to less prejudiced people. Do you think people from minorities would be as likely to get a fair trial? It might only be a slightly worse probably, but it is conceivable.
Now compound that with the fact that, since people of minorities tend to be lower income, they would be more likely to opt out so that they wouldn't have to miss work. Now we have statistically more racist people who are potential jurors, and fewer people who would be likely to understand the life of the defendant if they are of a minority.
These are all theoretical, but that is why jury duty must be mandatory and use random selection. The jury must represent the population as closely as possible so that the outcome matches societies values as much as possible.
While you may feel that your intention would be a problem with being a juror, I would rather you be judging my fate than many people because you are intelligent and logical and would recognize the importance of what you are deciding. If people like you opted out BECAUSE you didn't want to decide someone's fate, the only people left would be the ones who either got off on that power or those who didn't really care. Either of those outcomes would terrify me in a justice system.
except the whole jury wouldn't be the same. there would still be enough diversity. except the useless ones like me wouldn't be a hinderance
except that you are just one juror. if the entire jury was the same then all of the opinions would be skewed, and that is much more dangerous in my opinion.
because in an experiment it is them that we are testing, whereas in a trial we are just asking them to make a decision. and I know everyone is slightly different at making a decision! I'm awful at it. whereas my boyfriend is really good at deciding things quickly.
so the problem is that you'd get the same type of people who want to do it, but I don't see how that is an issue. the trial is nothing to do with them. all they have to do is examine evidence and make a decision. I think forcing people who don't want to do it, to do it will effect the decision more than slight differences in people's personality.
I have a really poor attention span, I get bored very quickly my brain has a habit of wandering off thinking about random stuff. and I just know that given the fact I don't want to do it, I would switch off, it sounds bad but I know I would. and I think that is worse than a small possibility of the jury being all the same.
I know you understand sample bias in experiments since you referenced it earlier. If a sample for an experiment is biased all that is hurt is some wasted time and money on the experiment. If the jury for a trial is biased, it is someone's life that is ruined. Why do you think that juries would be immune by an effect that we know can alter experimental results?
people would show up, they do now, people who want to fight do.
90% of people I've asked actually want to do it. Don't you think that asking someone who really doesn't want to do it would effect the decision?
if no one showed up to defend their country during a war you don't think that would collapse society?
and yes, if every juror was a volunteer then it would heavily affect the outcome. they would all be rich(don't need to work), retired, or just want to for personal reasons (like to get off on publishing people). it would no longer be a jury of your peers.
as for going to war, that is something very extreme if you don't want to take part I. that then fair enough, society wouldn't fail because there are enough people who want to do it!
I think there would still be enough diversity that it wouldnt influence it any way! it would influence it just as much as whether you want to do it or not. for example those who want to do it may be more eager whereas those who do want to do it may not be as focused during the trial, may not pay attention cos they don't want to be there etc.
I don't think your a bad citizen for not wanting to take part in these kind if things, going to war etc everything should be a choice.
But you do need random participants for the same reasons as experiments. Selection bias is a very real thing. What would happen to the justice system if the only people who served on juries were either unemployed or wealthy enough to not need to work? Do you think that would influence results of cases involving working conditions?
I don't think omactivate was saying you are not a good citizen. I think (s)he was getting at the fact that there are responsibilities to being a citizen along with the rights. Not wanting to do something doesn't make you a bad citizen.
Lots of people didn't want to get drafted during WW2, but most fulfilled their civic duty and served when called to. If you were asked to fulfill a civic duty and refused or avoided it, that is being a bad citizen. If everyone did that, society fails.
are you implying that by not wanting to do it you are not a good citizen?? because that is what it sounds like.
I never want to do jury duty ever, but that doesn't make me a bad citizen. I don't want to do it for many reasons
1.i don't want to be involved in deciding what happens to someone
2.i don't want to spend two or more weeks backwards and forwards on the train to do something I don't want to do
3.i don't necessarily want to know about crimes that have been committed
4.i don't want to spend two plus weeks going all the way to Exeter when I might not even get picked whilst I'm there
5. I don't think it's fair to force people into things they don't want to do
I think it would be better to have everyone down to do it, but if you want to take your name off it then so be it. so what if you get the same types of people doing it, it's not an experiment where you need random participants.
I am an American citizen. Therefore I am part of society, so if I am asked to be a juror when I'm older I will do that to be a good member of society
no. I wouldn't really want to do it. but I understand the need for it to be done.
haha! so do you guys want to do it? I just hope if I get asked I can find an excuse!!
I'm surprised to say this, but historybuff is 100% right.
I'm trying to think of the last time I agreed with historybuff on anything...
yeah, its a tough one I guess, loads of my friends really wanna do it but I dread being asked to! my mum was asked to once but she had literally just had me the day before the letter came so got away with it!
Somebody has to do it,though it is fair to notice that if the jurors want the trial done Asap, they may not give a fair chance to the defense or let them off. tough luck, that is how people are. History buff is right on saying volunteers will have more bias, more so than required jurors
I get that, I just can't help thinking its unfair to force someone who really doesn't want to do it, to do it!
if you only had a voluntary jury it would bias the results. only certain types of people would be on juries. the whole point of a jury is that it is a group of your peers. if you have 12 retired people they are going to have a different view of things than a more differentiated group.
I feel like there are lots who people who want to or would like to do it, but equally many I don't! I for one really hope I never get asked! someone I know had to do it, it was a rape and murder case he found it pretty haunting and I just never want to have to do it. I worry I might say someones guilty when theyre not and vice versa! I know there's a large group of people in the jury still I'd never want to do it.
it isn't called a "duty" because its voluntary. it is a requirement of being a citizen. if you could just choose to not do it then no one would and that would be the end of our justice system.