Jury Duty
If the court can force people to be jurors because it needs jurors, why can’t it also force people to be judges, lawyers, prosecutors, etc? Why can’t it force carpenters to make tables, chairs, and gavels? Etc. Why draw the line at jurors? Seems absurd.
#3386·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month agoTrial by jury has been central to English Common Law legal systems “since the memory of man runneth not to the contrary.” So you could say it is simply a matter of tradition.
… it is simply a matter of tradition.
Another answer suggests that “We are following a tradition that came from British law of having trials decided by volunteers…” (emphasis mine).
So while having a jury may be tradition, the force part might not be tradition but relatively new.
#3303·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month ago“If we make it a profession, we'll still have elites judging commoners and commoners unable to get justice.” (Source)
Making something voluntary doesn’t necessarily make it a profession. I buy sandwiches voluntarily, that doesn’t mean I work in that field.
#3391·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month ago[Force is] cheaper than paying jurors their market rate for their time.
Well, at least this response is an honest confession of one of the (potentially) true motivations behind jury duty…
#3391·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month ago[Force is] cheaper than paying jurors their market rate for their time.
It’s not clear to me that force is cheaper. On the contrary, force causes friction. Dealing with people who don’t want to be there results in additional overhead that may be hidden/not reflected in numbers.
[Force is] cheaper than paying jurors their market rate for their time.
#3388·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month agoI think the best justification is legitimacy: people accept a court decision better if it was made by their peers, instead of a government employee. That is important in places where the government is not trusted, or trustworthy.
Force reduces legitimacy because there’s a greater risk of abuse and bias in jury selection.
#3388·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month agoI think the best justification is legitimacy: people accept a court decision better if it was made by their peers, instead of a government employee. That is important in places where the government is not trusted, or trustworthy.
Voluntary choice makes the process more legitimate, not less.
The same issue comes up with conscription, say: there’s honor in defending your country voluntarily, if you decide it deserves defending. But if you’re forced to defend it regardless, your efforts aren’t a reflection of merit or legitimacy anymore.
Take the POV of a third party from another country. Let’s say you’re European and you observe, from afar, the US being attacked by a foreign adversary. You also observe millions of Americans signing up the next day to defend America. That would mean something. Europeans could note this development as proof that America has values that are worth defending. But if Americans were instead conscripted, this signal would be lost.
I think the best justification is legitimacy: people accept a court decision better if it was made by their peers, instead of a government employee. That is important in places where the government is not trusted, or trustworthy.
#3386·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month agoTrial by jury has been central to English Common Law legal systems “since the memory of man runneth not to the contrary.” So you could say it is simply a matter of tradition.
Making juries voluntary doesn’t mean getting rid of them.
Trial by jury has been central to English Common Law legal systems “since the memory of man runneth not to the contrary.” So you could say it is simply a matter of tradition.
#3384·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month agoIf the legislature approves, doesn’t that mean the force is not arbitrary? Since whatever they decide goes through an objective approval process.
It’s still arbitrary if it doesn’t address your objections. That’s a violation of consent and thus irrational.
#3383·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month agoBy that logic, the government could arbitrarily force you to do anything the legislature approves of.
If the legislature approves, doesn’t that mean the force is not arbitrary? Since whatever they decide goes through an objective approval process.
By that logic, the government could arbitrarily force you to do anything the legislature approves of.
The difficulty of finding volunteers alone means that jury duty must be mandatory.
Not necessarily. It might just mean that courts suck at persuading people to be jurors.
The difficulty of finding volunteers alone means that jury duty must be mandatory.
Not necessarily. It might just mean that courts are bad at persuading people to be jurors.
… if it were voluntary, it wouldn’t be fair for those who did serve.
By that ‘logic’, we never could have abolished slavery. What a stupid argument.
… if it were voluntary, it wouldn’t be fair for those who did serve.
By that ‘logic’, America never could have abolished slavery because freeing the next generation would have been ‘unfair’ to slaves. What a stupid argument.